EVERYTHING I’m about to say is on the record. Like the rest of this blog, in fact. Maybe I could have avoided personal criticism of me and my views over the past six or seven months if I had written anonymously, as some choose to do.
But that would be cowardly. This is me and these are my views.
Which brings me on to this piece in The Scotsman, and the criticism of me and views I expressed in a previous post by “One source in the environment sector…” How brave of this unnamed individual to criticise a public figure – someone whose comments, just to reiterate, are attributable and on-the-record – from the safety of anonimity.
Setting aside the self-delusion of those individuals who are convinced that people will change their travel patterns out of purely altruistic motives (based on what evidence or precedent, I wonder?), why doesn’t he/she have the courage of his/her (sod it, I can’t be bothered writing that any more – from now on it’s “he”; if “he” isn’t a “he” then “he” should identify “himself”) convictions and be publicly identified with them?
When I worked on local newspapers, I used to make the argument that anyone who submitted a letter for publication should be told in advance that only those willing to have their names and addresses included would be published. “Name and address supplied” always looked craven to me, except, of course, where someone had good reason to believe they would suffer victimisation for expressing certain views.
I still think it’s craven.
I’m Tom Harris and I approved this post.