Critical reception

I HAVE a New Year message for all those anonymous critics who regularly attack me on The Press website following any article or letter in which I feature.

Thank you. The more agitated you become, the more I know my comments are successfully hitting home.

It is your continued and predictable reaction which will encourage me to carry on my contributions throughout 2013.

Matthew Laverack, Lord Mayor’s Walk, York.

Comments (17)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:38am Wed 2 Jan 13

capt spaulding says...

I think he means you Buzz
I think he means you Buzz capt spaulding

11:18am Wed 2 Jan 13

Buzz Light-year says...

capt spaulding wrote:
I think he means you Buzz
Really?
I'm pretty sure I've never attacked Matthew Laverack never mind regularly and I certainly never get agitated by anything on this site.
[quote][p][bold]capt spaulding[/bold] wrote: I think he means you Buzz[/p][/quote]Really? I'm pretty sure I've never attacked Matthew Laverack never mind regularly and I certainly never get agitated by anything on this site. Buzz Light-year

11:19am Wed 2 Jan 13

The Great Buda says...

You lot must have really upset him this time.
You lot must have really upset him this time. The Great Buda

12:35pm Wed 2 Jan 13

/kev/null says...

Well that told... somebody? Presumably.
Well that told... somebody? Presumably. /kev/null

12:56pm Wed 2 Jan 13

Prob says...

If your sole purpose is to agitate people, then you are the hand-written of a troll.

Don't feed the troll, etc etc
If your sole purpose is to agitate people, then you are the hand-written of a troll. Don't feed the troll, etc etc Prob

12:57pm Wed 2 Jan 13

Prob says...

somehow missed the word "equivalent" there!

please don't mention this in your next letter Matthew, or you make me cry.
somehow missed the word "equivalent" there! please don't mention this in your next letter Matthew, or you make me cry. Prob

1:15pm Wed 2 Jan 13

Scarlet Pimpernel says...

Well done Matthew, for your valuable contributions on many interesting and valid debates, throughout 2012.

I look forward to more of the same in 2013.

Keep up the good work, mate !

PS I am NOT Matthew Laverack ;-)
Well done Matthew, for your valuable contributions on many interesting and valid debates, throughout 2012. I look forward to more of the same in 2013. Keep up the good work, mate ! PS I am NOT Matthew Laverack ;-) Scarlet Pimpernel

1:17pm Wed 2 Jan 13

Scarlet Pimpernel says...

Buzz Light-year wrote:
capt spaulding wrote: I think he means you Buzz
Really? I'm pretty sure I've never attacked Matthew Laverack never mind regularly and I certainly never get agitated by anything on this site.
Not even about James Alexander's restrictions on freedom of speech ?

Think you forgot about that one!
[quote][p][bold]Buzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]capt spaulding[/bold] wrote: I think he means you Buzz[/p][/quote]Really? I'm pretty sure I've never attacked Matthew Laverack never mind regularly and I certainly never get agitated by anything on this site.[/p][/quote]Not even about James Alexander's restrictions on freedom of speech ? Think you forgot about that one! Scarlet Pimpernel

1:25pm Wed 2 Jan 13

Buzz Light-year says...

Scarlet Pimpernel wrote:
Buzz Light-year wrote:
capt spaulding wrote: I think he means you Buzz
Really? I'm pretty sure I've never attacked Matthew Laverack never mind regularly and I certainly never get agitated by anything on this site.
Not even about James Alexander's restrictions on freedom of speech ? Think you forgot about that one!
Ok, I'll rephrase - I never get agitated by anything *written* on this site.

The restrictions on freedom of speech were a result of jma1982's actions separate to anything published here.
[quote][p][bold]Scarlet Pimpernel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]capt spaulding[/bold] wrote: I think he means you Buzz[/p][/quote]Really? I'm pretty sure I've never attacked Matthew Laverack never mind regularly and I certainly never get agitated by anything on this site.[/p][/quote]Not even about James Alexander's restrictions on freedom of speech ? Think you forgot about that one![/p][/quote]Ok, I'll rephrase - I never get agitated by anything *written* on this site. The restrictions on freedom of speech were a result of jma1982's actions separate to anything published here. Buzz Light-year

1:36pm Wed 2 Jan 13

Buzz Light-year says...

I notice Mr L uses the word "anonymous" to describe his critics.
Something that he has often been bothered about and something jma1982 is bothered about too.

Radio 4 has been playing a series of programmes called "Belle de Jour's History of Anon"
Highly recommended listening. Check it on iplayer.

Jane Austen, the Brontes, Jonathan Swift all used it.
It has allowed and continues to allow people their right to speak out against oppressive political regimes, the Arab Spring being the obvious.

Anonymity has held a valid place in many contexts for a long time and rightfully still does today.
I notice Mr L uses the word "anonymous" to describe his critics. Something that he has often been bothered about and something jma1982 is bothered about too. Radio 4 has been playing a series of programmes called "Belle de Jour's History of Anon" Highly recommended listening. Check it on iplayer. Jane Austen, the Brontes, Jonathan Swift all used it. It has allowed and continues to allow people their right to speak out against oppressive political regimes, the Arab Spring being the obvious. Anonymity has held a valid place in many contexts for a long time and rightfully still does today. Buzz Light-year

1:50pm Wed 2 Jan 13

Scarlet Pimpernel says...

Buzz Light-year wrote:
Scarlet Pimpernel wrote:
Buzz Light-year wrote:
capt spaulding wrote: I think he means you Buzz
Really? I'm pretty sure I've never attacked Matthew Laverack never mind regularly and I certainly never get agitated by anything on this site.
Not even about James Alexander's restrictions on freedom of speech ? Think you forgot about that one!
Ok, I'll rephrase - I never get agitated by anything *written* on this site. The restrictions on freedom of speech were a result of jma1982's actions separate to anything published here.
What about the fact that comments are disallowed on JA's letters in addition to Press articles that involve him ?
[quote][p][bold]Buzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Scarlet Pimpernel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]capt spaulding[/bold] wrote: I think he means you Buzz[/p][/quote]Really? I'm pretty sure I've never attacked Matthew Laverack never mind regularly and I certainly never get agitated by anything on this site.[/p][/quote]Not even about James Alexander's restrictions on freedom of speech ? Think you forgot about that one![/p][/quote]Ok, I'll rephrase - I never get agitated by anything *written* on this site. The restrictions on freedom of speech were a result of jma1982's actions separate to anything published here.[/p][/quote]What about the fact that comments are disallowed on JA's letters in addition to Press articles that involve him ? Scarlet Pimpernel

4:31pm Wed 2 Jan 13

capt spaulding says...

Buzz Light-year wrote:
I notice Mr L uses the word "anonymous" to describe his critics.
Something that he has often been bothered about and something jma1982 is bothered about too.

Radio 4 has been playing a series of programmes called "Belle de Jour's History of Anon"
Highly recommended listening. Check it on iplayer.

Jane Austen, the Brontes, Jonathan Swift all used it.
It has allowed and continues to allow people their right to speak out against oppressive political regimes, the Arab Spring being the obvious.

Anonymity has held a valid place in many contexts for a long time and rightfully still does today.
Im sure your right Buzz but your effigy didnt get pride of place on the Lord Mayors Walk Gibbet for no reason.
[quote][p][bold]Buzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: I notice Mr L uses the word "anonymous" to describe his critics. Something that he has often been bothered about and something jma1982 is bothered about too. Radio 4 has been playing a series of programmes called "Belle de Jour's History of Anon" Highly recommended listening. Check it on iplayer. Jane Austen, the Brontes, Jonathan Swift all used it. It has allowed and continues to allow people their right to speak out against oppressive political regimes, the Arab Spring being the obvious. Anonymity has held a valid place in many contexts for a long time and rightfully still does today.[/p][/quote]Im sure your right Buzz but your effigy didnt get pride of place on the Lord Mayors Walk Gibbet for no reason. capt spaulding

9:24pm Wed 2 Jan 13

Buzz Light-year says...

capt spaulding wrote:
Buzz Light-year wrote: I notice Mr L uses the word "anonymous" to describe his critics. Something that he has often been bothered about and something jma1982 is bothered about too. Radio 4 has been playing a series of programmes called "Belle de Jour's History of Anon" Highly recommended listening. Check it on iplayer. Jane Austen, the Brontes, Jonathan Swift all used it. It has allowed and continues to allow people their right to speak out against oppressive political regimes, the Arab Spring being the obvious. Anonymity has held a valid place in many contexts for a long time and rightfully still does today.
Im sure your right Buzz but your effigy didnt get pride of place on the Lord Mayors Walk Gibbet for no reason.
Yeah funny you should mention that, I'd say it was equal billing rather than pride of place. Weird as it was.

Funny how easy it seems to be to ignore all the times I've agreed with Mr L's letters on these pages.

Trying to agitate readers, going to the trouble of nailing effigies to the outside of your shop, singling people out - it says a lot more about the author than the so-called critics.

Not sure there even are any actual direct critics to be honest.
Maybe Mr L enjoys the notoriety, perhaps he gets off on the criticism?
This letter would suggest so.
The search box might do so too.
[quote][p][bold]capt spaulding[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: I notice Mr L uses the word "anonymous" to describe his critics. Something that he has often been bothered about and something jma1982 is bothered about too. Radio 4 has been playing a series of programmes called "Belle de Jour's History of Anon" Highly recommended listening. Check it on iplayer. Jane Austen, the Brontes, Jonathan Swift all used it. It has allowed and continues to allow people their right to speak out against oppressive political regimes, the Arab Spring being the obvious. Anonymity has held a valid place in many contexts for a long time and rightfully still does today.[/p][/quote]Im sure your right Buzz but your effigy didnt get pride of place on the Lord Mayors Walk Gibbet for no reason.[/p][/quote]Yeah funny you should mention that, I'd say it was equal billing rather than pride of place. Weird as it was. Funny how easy it seems to be to ignore all the times I've agreed with Mr L's letters on these pages. Trying to agitate readers, going to the trouble of nailing effigies to the outside of your shop, singling people out - it says a lot more about the author than the so-called critics. Not sure there even are any actual direct critics to be honest. Maybe Mr L enjoys the notoriety, perhaps he gets off on the criticism? This letter would suggest so. The search box might do so too. Buzz Light-year

9:36pm Wed 2 Jan 13

Buzz Light-year says...

Scarlet Pimpernel wrote:
Buzz Light-year wrote:
Scarlet Pimpernel wrote:
Buzz Light-year wrote:
capt spaulding wrote: I think he means you Buzz
Really? I'm pretty sure I've never attacked Matthew Laverack never mind regularly and I certainly never get agitated by anything on this site.
Not even about James Alexander's restrictions on freedom of speech ? Think you forgot about that one!
Ok, I'll rephrase - I never get agitated by anything *written* on this site. The restrictions on freedom of speech were a result of jma1982's actions separate to anything published here.
What about the fact that comments are disallowed on JA's letters in addition to Press articles that involve him ?
That The Press feels pressured to shut down comment on anything related to jma1982 and others is more disappointing than annoying.
The disappointment lies squarely with the journos not the politicos. They don't have to back down so easily.
Anyone can apply pressure. Standing up to pressure is what counts.

It wasn't like that before everyone was so scared of litigation.

As long as people from all walks and disparate ideologies can see this and all speak up about it then readers will see for themselves that what is removed says more than it did when it stood, what is disallowed says more than it could if allowed.

Unlike you, it's not personal or political for me.
[quote][p][bold]Scarlet Pimpernel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Scarlet Pimpernel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]capt spaulding[/bold] wrote: I think he means you Buzz[/p][/quote]Really? I'm pretty sure I've never attacked Matthew Laverack never mind regularly and I certainly never get agitated by anything on this site.[/p][/quote]Not even about James Alexander's restrictions on freedom of speech ? Think you forgot about that one![/p][/quote]Ok, I'll rephrase - I never get agitated by anything *written* on this site. The restrictions on freedom of speech were a result of jma1982's actions separate to anything published here.[/p][/quote]What about the fact that comments are disallowed on JA's letters in addition to Press articles that involve him ?[/p][/quote]That The Press feels pressured to shut down comment on anything related to jma1982 and others is more disappointing than annoying. The disappointment lies squarely with the journos not the politicos. They don't have to back down so easily. Anyone can apply pressure. Standing up to pressure is what counts. It wasn't like that before everyone was so scared of litigation. As long as people from all walks and disparate ideologies can see this and all speak up about it then readers will see for themselves that what is removed says more than it did when it stood, what is disallowed says more than it could if allowed. Unlike you, it's not personal or political for me. Buzz Light-year

9:41pm Wed 2 Jan 13

capt spaulding says...

Fair comment , but maybe lay off mentioning bottles of Champagne. Who cares.
Fair comment , but maybe lay off mentioning bottles of Champagne. Who cares. capt spaulding

1:22pm Thu 3 Jan 13

Buzz Light-year says...

Ok, I Bolly well will do ;D
Ok, I Bolly well will do ;D Buzz Light-year

8:23pm Fri 4 Jan 13

Yorkman11 says...

There are those who write letters to aggrandise themselves, especially local politicians.

There are those who write to express a word of thanks and appreciation to those who have rendered a service.

There are those who very occasionally feel the need to raise a point of genuine concern to them selves.

Then there are the very few, like Matthew Laverack, who tell it as it is.

He is not emotional: he is factual. He is not a politician: nor is he cowed by them. He does not grind an axe other than those against profligacy, bureaucracy, a lack of common sense and bigots.

Matthew - you are a breath of fresh air and you are not afraid to look into dirty corners. Keep up the good work and shame those who are working for themselves and not for us, the honest tax payers.
There are those who write letters to aggrandise themselves, especially local politicians. There are those who write to express a word of thanks and appreciation to those who have rendered a service. There are those who very occasionally feel the need to raise a point of genuine concern to them selves. Then there are the very few, like Matthew Laverack, who tell it as it is. He is not emotional: he is factual. He is not a politician: nor is he cowed by them. He does not grind an axe other than those against profligacy, bureaucracy, a lack of common sense and bigots. Matthew - you are a breath of fresh air and you are not afraid to look into dirty corners. Keep up the good work and shame those who are working for themselves and not for us, the honest tax payers. Yorkman11

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree