´óÏó´«Ã½

Well **** me with a wet **** - what did McLennan expect, swearing online? To be honest, I didn't find his swearing an issue - I found his insulting references to women and 'chavs' far more problematic. All in all, I think people should be careful with their online language but I also think the freedom of web-based conversation should serve to make people less prudish over time.

I'd say it was as much about the 'coffin-dodger' term as the swearing.

Quite amusing and ironic really to hear outrage about bad language and bad behaviour from an employee of the ´óÏó´«Ã½, an organisation that has probably done more to debase the currency of our language and dumb down the population than any other.

Sorry, slightly OT, but to return to a theme of a recent blog entry about the political parties sending emails and whether it's compliant with the Data Protection Act, there's an interesting story . Don't know whether it's true, but if it is, then that is pretty strong prima facie evidence that Labour may have been playing fast and loose with the DPA. Perhaps you could investigate and let us know, Rory?

A bit rich for the Daily Politics to have your feature on the internet election at a time when North Briish politics is off-limits in the ´óÏó´«Ã½ blogosphere.

Brian Taylor on Friday issued a promise to keep a thread open, broken on Sunday on the ironically named The Twitter election thread.

Coupled with draconian new moderation policies which render anything the teeniest bit off-topic removed, this is an affront to democracy when even the Nick Robinson threads are being left open.

I never put anything in a blog, tweet, etc., that I wouldn't be prepared to read out in a court appearance attended by my (grand)parents, my children, a group of nuns and HM The Queen.

Sad to report, however, that some of the foulest-mouthed in society would be (to me, perversely) proud to do just that in respect of their vile outpourings.

I don't consider myself in the least prudish but always deplore foul language in the media - on tv, radio, in newsprint and on internet forums and networking sites. It's totally unnecessary.

The worst thing in this particular case, however, is that this fellow didn't see anything wrong in posting such ridiculously juvenile, insulting remarks on a public networking site, yet at the same time imagined he would make a trusted political representative. The selection process must be very sketchily done these days is all I can think.

Yes he should most certaqinly have been sacked, but if it was up to me he'd have been out of the door in deep disgrace far sooner.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

The worst aspect of the Stuart MacLennan furoré was completely overlooked by the NuLabour appratchiks in the media, and that is that many bigwigs in the Labour Party, including many holding office, already knew what MacLennan was up to, being as they were followers of his tweets.

One of these followers was none other than Jim Murphy, Secretary of State for Scotland.

So why aren't the ´óÏó´«Ã½ asking more questions, about who knew what and when, and why they didn't take action sooner.

Or is it the case that mainstream media doesn't take action until the people's commentariat take the abuser to task.

I think the whole affair indicates how modern journalism is being eclipsed by citizen reportage.

No wonder the snoozepapers of the world are in such sharp decline -- their reporters just aren't up to the job any longer.

There is a gulf between how young people talk to each other, and how older people talk to each other. It was ever so. When young people say that politicians aren't talking their language, there's some truth in it.

I found the whole affair with Stuart McLennan quite laughable. He was sacked for having a sense of humour and using colloquialisms. But the parties are all so paranoid about one tweet or Facebook comment being picked up by the national press and used against a party, that the electorate is only every presented with bland, sanitised and party-approved comments.

At least with Stuart MacLennan you would have known exactly who you were voting for. All the other candidates are puppets to their party. Also, foul language does not at all offend me (I'm 20 so relatively young) but then again, nothing really does. I'm not one of these people who 'gets offended' then writes in to complain about it, and I think the vast majority of people are the same. Look at all the groups on Facebook that are racist, sexist, ageist etc, and look at the number of fans they have. I think as long as people are joking then most people just let it slide.

All this user's posts have been removed.Why?