I’m writing a piece on the sliming of Mandelson, an updated and tighter version of what I already have written. I tried engaging with them to put a couple of questions that I thought were relevent.

Who did they represent, how were these people included in their decision making process?  They claim their actions are accountable, but to whom?  Who decides what is accountable and by what process?

Ultimately, they accepted that these were legitimate questions, but refused to answer because I was ‘an enemy’, because I had criticised them. This is a worrying sign, because in the words of JFK;

“What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents.”

If they are going to accuse Mandelson of not being elected and cite that as a justification for attacking him in the street, then surely we have the right to ask who elected them?

The fact that they refer to critics, not as opponents but as ‘enemies’ tells us something about their mindset, something unpleasant.