Dickens
Whether we agree with them or not (and I don't), GSM is as entitled as anyone else to her views.
She has not directed her attack on any poster on here.
I'd also point out that there have been topics and threads where Boris Johnson (and others) have come under scrutiny, and some pretty dire observations made about his appearance, his morals, and his character (often well deserved IMO) - to the extent that some GNetters have complained of a hate-campaign against him.
Are there lines not to be crossed? I think so - denigrating someone for their ethnicity, physical defect or impediment, but GSM did not do that.
I think we are all judgemental to some degree or other - I like to kid myself that I'm not, but in reality I know that I am and, in private, have made some pretty severe observations about politicians, and people in general, but on social media, use a sieve before posting. Clearly, GSM doesn't filter her opinion - but unless using banned terminology, she's not obliged to do that.
Why am I defending her? In the interests of free speech; I personally don't want a social media site where opinions and views can only be expressed via a prescribed, reformist, narrative.
Dickens Sat 06-Jul-24 11:31:40
I agree Dickens
I pointed that out earlier but less eloquently than you.
Some of the attacks on Germanshepherdsmum have been quite vicious and spiteful.
She has not attacked other posters, just posted her thoughts on a politician. I wouldn't use the terms she used but I have, in fact, seen far worse used on Gransnet against other politicians.