As the hysterical left weep into their lattes...

(They may not agree with you, but should explain why not, if that were the case)

Nonio, why do you regard it as wrong to provide a link to an article written by a well-known, well-respected writer, in a national newspaper which not everyone likes but which has good standing, in which she takes issue with what she sees as a certain attitude in some people towards those who voted the opposite way from them?

You don't have to answer that rhetorical question. It quite simply isn't wrong.

It's fine for you (or anyone) not to like the article. It's not fine for it to be censored.

Actually, since it's from the Times I think it may only available for a week except to people who have a subscription to the Times.

I think my maths is right here below, allowing for rounding. I'm sure someone on here will find a way to abuse me for my post! ?

Voter turnout was 70% so talking about 50% of the electorate needing to be convinced that it's right to leave is inaccurate. Working on approximate result figures of 48% IN against 52% OUT gives us: 34% of the total electorate voted IN, 36% voted OUT and 30% didn't vote. Who are the ones who didn't vote? What might the result have been if they'd got out of their chairs and voted? Postal votes and proxy votes exist for those who can't make it to the polling station. If the young blame the old for a result they don't like, could it be that the older generation value their right to vote more highly? Your vote is your opportunity to influence the outcome. 30% of possible votes were wasted. 30% more of the electorate could have voted IN or OUT. That's a lot of apathy. It's 30% of the electorate who need to be convinced of something...

Ana: They should, at the very minimum, monitor the opening thread. The moderators appear to have removed at least one response to this thread so he or she (or they) must have seen the unfortunate and unhelpful opening thread. That, in itself is making a statement that Gransnet is far from neutral & is not supporting a courteous an factually based debate.

Most users, I am guessing, will want good outcomes in this world. Not just good for them but good for our fellow humans.

Most are likely to understand that we live in a complex world and sometimes make decisions as best we could that we'd later, on receipt of better information would like to reverse or change.

That is what I'd like Granset moderators lead. We need a much better tone to this debate and that means looking at opening threads carefully as, if they start with personal insults (albeit dressed up in quotation or links to articles) the it is likely to lead to more.

In my view : ALL OPENING POSTS SHOULD NEVER BE PEROSNALLY INSULTING. They should be removed before spawning, for example, the exceptionally regrettable tone of this thread.

varian

"Biased information I have been fed over the years by the press"

and of course that doesn't work both ways does it?!!

If we've exhausted our blame game there's always Maggie Thatcher, she'll do.

Thanks rosesarered

I'm not wearing blinkers daphnedill, frankly I find your lack of tolerance for the views of others quite distasteful.

Liuziepopbottle: now that is the sort of factual thread that I find helpful. We can all, regardless of our vote or views, look at this fact and start thinking of ways we can find out more.

Of course, this referendum vote had a far higher turn out than most elections.

I, for one, am curious about those who did not vote.

I'm also curious about the waverers who did vote but are reflecting on their decision whichever way they voted. They should not be insulted or abused. Why should they tell us anything at all that is truthful if that is what they fear?

Also about the voters who were sure when they caste their vote but now wished they had voted differently (whichever way they voted).

So long as no one is insulted there is (admittedly now a small) chance we could get a productive discussion going on this forum, if not in this rather regrettable thread. I am beginning to wonder whether, despite the name of this website and therefore the likely age span of participants, age and wisdom truly do go together.

Let us collect ourselves, take a deep breath, and make a determined effort to show that age does mean wisdom.

"THATBAGS". : the answer is because the title that fed into our inboxes this morning fed the tone of this "conversation"

In case you do not know this is what it said : "As the hysterical left weep into their lattes".

If you wished to start a discussion that helped heal differences and brought people together would you start in this way?

I await your answer with interest. At the very minimum it does not seem skilful. I doubt you had any desire to do anything helpful at all.

No posts have been deleted on this thread as far as I can see, Nonio. GNHQ say that it's been deleted.

Goodness me, we're not children, or delicate blossoms liable to wither away if someone disagrees with us. No one on this thread has been called a racist. No one has been personally insulted. I didn't like the article in the OP, and said so. It's called discussion, and it's what we do in a free country. If you think there's anything to report, why not do so? But please don't tell the rest of us what we should say, or how we should post.

What would you have titled it, nonio* ?

Titles are supposed to give an idea of what the post is about, and this one was about a link to an article by Libby Purves entitled "Hysterical lefties really need to grow up" and beginning :-

"As the culturati weep into their lattes while demonising the poor, old and insecure, the carry-on has been beyond parody"

The title of the OP does give a really good idea of the link! The lefty culturati (champagne socialists?) might feel insulted about the article itself, but you are not one of those, are you?

But don't you see the irony / hypocrisy of offensively stereotyping one group of people and complaining about others being being offensively stereotyped by them?.

"Elegran". Having looked at this discourse...what would your aim have been in starting this thread? How might you have headed it in a way that might have had the best bits of this conversation included without insulting a subset of readers?

Is that too difficult?

It was mistaken to assume that people who are now very worried and very disappointed are 1) hysterical; 2) left leaning; 3) "luvvies" whatever they are... 4) weeping into their lattes.

It would also be an error of judgment to assume that those who voted for Remain fitted into any of these categories. I know people of the political left and right who voted for remain. I do not know one who is hysterical. I do know some who are very worried and angry at misrepresentations of facts. I have no idea what a "luvvie" is but, as far as I know I do not know one. I do know people who have cried,mid not into their coffins or teas. I am far from sure why that should result in the triumphant leader started (or rather continued) here.

I guess, Elegran, Gransnet has to decide whether it wishes to lean on the worst aspects of the news world or whether it wishes to foster constructive not insulting debate.

I hope the former. I will wait and see.

Hahaha, typo : " but not into their coffees" not "coffins" however Freudian that typo might be!

Yes, Suzied ..I absolutely get the irony.

cupcake the bias in the press is very heavily in the direction of right wing populism, never more so than in the run up to this referendum but it has always been thus. The Express was running an "anti common market" campaign in the 1960s. Most of these papers are owned by billionaires pushing their own agenda - either foreigners, tax-exiles or pornographers.

Margaret Thatcher's policies were hugely important in sowing the seeds of division and the destruction of the society she did not believe in. She was utterly discreditable and courted the pornographers who published front page headlines saying "vote for Maggie" and photos of topless models on page three. Even some of those who voted for her do admit that now. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Thank you Libby Purves!

It made you read it though, didn't it? Exactly as the headlines in the Express make you look, if only to see what preposterous thing is being reported. Subsets of readers are feeling insulted every few minutes reading some publication or other. Nothing different about a latte-drinking lefty, no need for them to be more thin-skinned than a fat cat MEP, a posh Etonian parasite or a xenophobic racist.

So that's alright then

I read it..and have made much the same decision that I made long before PRincess Di was hunted by the press to her death. I shall not support the press that do this. I have not bought a single newspaper who continued to do this since.

I shall not participate in this sort of debate. "Elegran": you sound as if you think that the debate was worth the insults. I don't think that you 'get' that it is possible to have a decent debate without the personal insults.

I do not think this "conversation" (to give it a more polite term than it deserves given it has fostered anger has failed signally to truly start to heal a single divide.)

That is not a success. It is yet another failure is the mess we choose to call politics, news and debate.

Shame on Gransnet.

How do I sign out of this forum to ensure I get no more posts?

lizzypopbottle - I understand what you are saying about those who did not vote. The decision as to which way to vote was a very close run thing for me and I nearly decided not to vote at all. But that felt like too much of a cop-out and I could not bring myself not to make use of the privilege of voting that others struggled for on behalf of us all.

Nonio, you speak as though you are being held in this forum against your will. How do you ensure you get no more posts? What do you mean? The posts don't come to you, you just stop reading them!

Me too Lucky, I managed to drag my decrepit a***e out to vote, mainly for my sons benefit !

I expect Nonio means PMs.