Contrasted campaigns

Contrasted campaigns

Contrasted campaigns

First published in Letters by

RICHARD BRIDGE claims I have attacked the poor (Letters 7 January). I have not.

He knows nothing about my character or he does know but is quite prepared to assassinate it to further his political ambition to become a York councillor. Previous Press campaigns have always been for specific aims with identifiable success.

Laverack Associates contributed £1,000 to the Guardian Angels Campaign to fund a high-dependency unit at York Hospital and produced free architectural drawings on an earlier Raise The Roof Campaign.

Stamp Out Poverty by comparison is nebulous with no universal consensus of poverty and therefore no possibility of declaring success.

It has a political dimension and is biased towards the views of certain individuals and organisations who are driving it forward.

My pointing this out is not an attack on the poor. Mr Bridge’s accusation simply proves the point I make that anyone daring to question the campaign can expect to be unjustly vilified.

Matthew Laverack, Lord Mayor’s Walk, York.

Comments (7)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:41pm Sat 11 Jan 14

George Appleby says...

I agree!
I agree! George Appleby
  • Score: -43

12:04am Sun 12 Jan 14

Rocking Horse says...

George Appleby wrote:
I agree!
Me too, George ;-)
[quote][p][bold]George Appleby[/bold] wrote: I agree![/p][/quote]Me too, George ;-) Rocking Horse
  • Score: -31

8:56pm Sun 12 Jan 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

Is the man incapable of debate?

Again resorting to playing the victim. Again deliberately confusing constructive criticism with personal attack. Again a letter focusing mainly on an architect of this parish.

My pointing this out is not an attack on the poor. Mr Bridge’s accusation simply proves the point I make that anyone daring to question the campaign can expect to be unjustly vilified.

Except this debate stemmed from the response to Gavin Aitchison's column which made no mention of any Stamp out Poverty campaign.
Except that I imagine the attack on the poor that Mr Bridge referred to was Mr Laverack's "cigarettes and alcohol" comments, conveniently evaded here.
Except that no matter how many times I read all of the responses to Mr Laverack's letters on this subject including and especially Richard Bridge's letter, I see no vilification or assassination whatsoever.


"Me me me! Oh poor me!"
Is the man incapable of debate? Again resorting to playing the victim. Again deliberately confusing constructive criticism with personal attack. Again a letter focusing mainly on an architect of this parish. [quote]My pointing this out is not an attack on the poor. Mr Bridge’s accusation simply proves the point I make that anyone daring to question the campaign can expect to be unjustly vilified.[/quote] Except this debate stemmed from the response to Gavin Aitchison's column which made no mention of any Stamp out Poverty campaign. Except that I imagine the attack on the poor that Mr Bridge referred to was Mr Laverack's "cigarettes and alcohol" comments, conveniently evaded here. Except that no matter how many times I read all of the responses to Mr Laverack's letters on this subject including and especially Richard Bridge's letter, I see no vilification or assassination whatsoever. "Me me me! Oh poor me!" Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: 49

5:55am Mon 13 Jan 14

Rocking Horse says...

Buzzz Light-year wrote:
Is the man incapable of debate? Again resorting to playing the victim. Again deliberately confusing constructive criticism with personal attack. Again a letter focusing mainly on an architect of this parish.
My pointing this out is not an attack on the poor. Mr Bridge’s accusation simply proves the point I make that anyone daring to question the campaign can expect to be unjustly vilified.
Except this debate stemmed from the response to Gavin Aitchison's column which made no mention of any Stamp out Poverty campaign. Except that I imagine the attack on the poor that Mr Bridge referred to was Mr Laverack's "cigarettes and alcohol" comments, conveniently evaded here. Except that no matter how many times I read all of the responses to Mr Laverack's letters on this subject including and especially Richard Bridge's letter, I see no vilification or assassination whatsoever. "Me me me! Oh poor me!"
Buzzz sees 'no personal villification', so throws some in for good measure.....

Any excuse, eh ?
[quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: Is the man incapable of debate? Again resorting to playing the victim. Again deliberately confusing constructive criticism with personal attack. Again a letter focusing mainly on an architect of this parish. [quote]My pointing this out is not an attack on the poor. Mr Bridge’s accusation simply proves the point I make that anyone daring to question the campaign can expect to be unjustly vilified.[/quote] Except this debate stemmed from the response to Gavin Aitchison's column which made no mention of any Stamp out Poverty campaign. Except that I imagine the attack on the poor that Mr Bridge referred to was Mr Laverack's "cigarettes and alcohol" comments, conveniently evaded here. Except that no matter how many times I read all of the responses to Mr Laverack's letters on this subject including and especially Richard Bridge's letter, I see no vilification or assassination whatsoever. "Me me me! Oh poor me!"[/p][/quote]Buzzz sees 'no personal villification', so throws some in for good measure..... Any excuse, eh ? Rocking Horse
  • Score: -37

8:21am Mon 13 Jan 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

Rocking Horse wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
Is the man incapable of debate? Again resorting to playing the victim. Again deliberately confusing constructive criticism with personal attack. Again a letter focusing mainly on an architect of this parish.
My pointing this out is not an attack on the poor. Mr Bridge’s accusation simply proves the point I make that anyone daring to question the campaign can expect to be unjustly vilified.
Except this debate stemmed from the response to Gavin Aitchison's column which made no mention of any Stamp out Poverty campaign. Except that I imagine the attack on the poor that Mr Bridge referred to was Mr Laverack's "cigarettes and alcohol" comments, conveniently evaded here. Except that no matter how many times I read all of the responses to Mr Laverack's letters on this subject including and especially Richard Bridge's letter, I see no vilification or assassination whatsoever. "Me me me! Oh poor me!"
Buzzz sees 'no personal villification', so throws some in for good measure.....

Any excuse, eh ?
Hi Rocking Horse, long time no chat.
Please tell us where I have thrown in "personal vilification"
Having been accused of all sorts of made up stuff in the past I'm careful to limit myself to observation and statement of fact.

Thanks.
[quote][p][bold]Rocking Horse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: Is the man incapable of debate? Again resorting to playing the victim. Again deliberately confusing constructive criticism with personal attack. Again a letter focusing mainly on an architect of this parish. [quote]My pointing this out is not an attack on the poor. Mr Bridge’s accusation simply proves the point I make that anyone daring to question the campaign can expect to be unjustly vilified.[/quote] Except this debate stemmed from the response to Gavin Aitchison's column which made no mention of any Stamp out Poverty campaign. Except that I imagine the attack on the poor that Mr Bridge referred to was Mr Laverack's "cigarettes and alcohol" comments, conveniently evaded here. Except that no matter how many times I read all of the responses to Mr Laverack's letters on this subject including and especially Richard Bridge's letter, I see no vilification or assassination whatsoever. "Me me me! Oh poor me!"[/p][/quote]Buzzz sees 'no personal villification', so throws some in for good measure..... Any excuse, eh ?[/p][/quote]Hi Rocking Horse, long time no chat. Please tell us where I have thrown in "personal vilification" Having been accused of all sorts of made up stuff in the past I'm careful to limit myself to observation and statement of fact. Thanks. Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: 29

11:28am Mon 13 Jan 14

The Great Buda says...

The playing the victim card is wearing a little thin from Mr Laverack.
The playing the victim card is wearing a little thin from Mr Laverack. The Great Buda
  • Score: 15

6:15pm Mon 13 Jan 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

Well Rocking Horse? Where is it?

I'm not at all surprised you haven't come back with it because it wasn't there in the first place.
Still, at least you didn't send a letter to The Press chock full of nasty false accusations about me like the poor picked-on Mr L did.
Well Rocking Horse? Where is it? I'm not at all surprised you haven't come back with it because it wasn't there in the first place. Still, at least you didn't send a letter to The Press chock full of nasty false accusations about me like the poor picked-on Mr L did. Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: 10

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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