What's all this 'red herring' and 'crimson kipper' nonsense? Maybe I'm being naive, but using facts, comparisons and examples to back an argument seems pretty normal to me.
Trouble is, there seem to be some here who seem to think that they can be convincing merely by standing on top of the heap and shouting the loudest.
Can anyone climb down from the heap and convince me that 'the will of the people' has been expressed in this case and, if so, why it shouldn't be applied in other contentious areas as well.
The ban itself is a government decision - like the PEL system. Can anyone defend both? And, if it is truly 'the will of the people' can anyone also defend the popular will to restore the death penalty?
Come on, fellas, let's have some consistency and logic here!
It's sad that the Daily Mail mentality has lodged itself so deeply in our national psyche...