Reading Comments

I have spent a few hours re-reading the comments left both here and at other places on the web. Not a comprehensive search, just the main ones the Editor had the time to find, print and send to me. I was hoping that the passage of time may allow me to discern some pearls of wisdom in comments that I had previously overlooked.

Three things immediately struck me. Firstly, that those of you who leave comments responding to my posts here are a very reasonable and thoughtful bunch. Secondly, that this is unusual I A shocking proportion of comments left elsewhere were bereft of any actual thought, just reiterations of bile. It seems that the Web has persuaded a lot of people that they have something to say, when the reality is that they don't. It is rare to read such a collection of asinine, trite, moronic drivel and if the Web did not exist then I think these people would be the ones huddled in the corner of the pub, nursing a single pint all night, randomly spouting alarming comments that saw other patrons look at them in silent pity. Note to the World - just because you have an opinion, it doesn't mean you need to share it and it certainly doesn't mean that all opinions are equally valid. Think before you Send.

Thirdly, it is surprising how it is that inserting 'prison’ into any argument provokes even the brightest of people to check out from their wits and begin to spout utter drivel. One of the first responses to my blogging were the comments left responding to a post by Iain Dale. As this is a Big Important Blog, I expected the comments to be considered and insightful. In fairness, apart from commenters on my Blog, they were the best of the bunch. Even so, a remarkable number revealed crashing ignorance by basing their whine on the 'fact' that I have direct internet access. Doh!

Is it standard practice on the Web to comment on matters of which you know bugger all? Why is that acceptable? Reading some of the comments was like observing a child intruding into an adult conversation - it was rude, silly and slightly embarrassing. And yet people did it in droves.

The blog that took the time to criticise me first was Letter From A Tory (LFAT). Assuming that this person has some standing in the political firmament, reading his post on why I shouldn't blog was quite depressing and frustrating. He dismissed my arguments as to why I should blog out of hand and substituted his own reasoning. And in doing so, revealed a profound ignorance. LFAT complained that prison should focus on punishment, therefore I shouldn't be allowed to blog. This is to completely fail to realise that my punishment ended at the expiry of my tariff, that is twenty years ago! Which brings me back to the question - why do people feel the urge to comment on matters of which they know nothing? Why risk the embarrassment of revealing ignorance on the Web, when you wouldn't dream of doing so in face-to-face conversation?

LFAT also makes a mistake that is incredibly common amongst those who commented upon my Guardian Comment if Free pieces. This is, that they confuse imprisonment as a loss of 'liberty' with imprisonment being a loss of 'liberties'.

The punishment is the loss of physical liberty. In a famous judgement of a bygone era, Raymond V Honey, it was explicitly laid down that prisoners retain their our civic rights except those explicitly removed by law or by necessary implication. That is, we do not, as prisoners, lose all of our liberties, only our liberty. This may come as a disappointment to one commenter at LFAT, who argued that I shouldn't even be allowed to write letters as this expressed an 'intellectual liberty’. Fancy arguing from a logical fallacy that a child may make. Another lost soul with a keyboard and VDU who just couldn't be bothered researching the topic before stunning the Web with his dumb comments.

This may sound rather harsh. It is and I mean it to be. I am used to dealing with a rather more sophisticated level of debate, based on civility and knowledge rather than random spontaneous utterances. I expected better, to be honest, from people who have the knowledge of the Web at their fingertips. Perhaps I expect too much, hoping that people will be guided by knowledge rather than wayward instinct. Seems I was wrong.

I expected the most from the commenters at the Guardian online and it is with those that I am most disappointed. The quality of the comments undermined any idea that Guardian readers were well-informed.

Please understand that I'm not complaining that people disagree with me, the more the merrier in that respect. My disappointment and frustration arises from the quality of what people were passing off as 'reasoning’.

Is the level of public debate being degraded by the Web? It was once the case that only people with knowledge and bravery put themselves up before the mob. Now, anybody and everybody feels able to do so. This may seem wonderfully egalitarian but it misses an important ingredient - ridicule and reputation. In the past, these acted as filters to deter the witless from sticking their heads above the parapet. But people seem to enjoy all of the benefits of the Web - i.e. a public voice - without any of the downsides. And without taking advantage of the heart of the Web its breadth of knowledge. There is no longer any excuse for ignorance before posting a comment.

I hope I am wrong. Once I have direct access to the net then I hope that I will be stunned and delighted by the quality of the debate, that the idea of the web raising levels of knowledge is not a false one. After all, the direction our future civilisation takes will be guided by the web, and if people treat it as a mere public megaphone whilst ignoring its ability to be an endless university then we risk a future which is both extremely loud and decidedly stupid.

I'm just glad that I have excellent comments posted on this blog.