I think it needs to be said either way. People reading it at first here might be thinking exactly that, but if they're reading and hearing it more often they're more likely to do some investigation themselves. Have been down that road myself as have many here I'd imagine.
That's an important point to make. Repeating the most factual things in particular too. Such as Camelford. Those need direct repetition.
I'm pretty sure I'd add the Maudsley and their philosophy type groups etc to the list because I can often feel that influence in some of the more unusual thinking.
The Long Covid people picking up on it so quickly is indeed insightful of how the 'barrier' seems to be 'choosing to not look away' or all the other variations of excuse provided as low-hanging post-hoc justification alongside implicit threats of 'don't get involved' that come from Wessely and co and the way they write/speak/behave etc. (underlining that they are, and, [importantly] will be, vindictive). ie there isn't much of a debate if you choose to want to get to the bottom of it at all.
There is also another important term I'd try and get across for him and the group that drives where they are, how they think and what they do: utter entitlement,
this is what happens when certain people have it and are over-indulged to continue. and the delusion required with making the ends meet on your self-beliefs of yourself/worth vs your demands ie perspective. We all know you have to have strange ideologies to justify things that don't add up etc. And I do think that, as something new to come thru from this one, that is highly pertinent for it to be put across.
Initially I thought, we have to remember that he will be saying and doing all this whatever anyone has actually done or said, and he does those things in order to censor. He's mean but there is also a reason to it and him getting his 'reply' (even where nothing was there to reply to) without the facts is the ideal. And as he uses repetition for instil tropes the same principle is important in getting across truth and fact, of it being the same things being said.
Right now, half way through, though I just cannot help thinking how any one of us would have been replied to if we had send or phoned or whatever media used to make his 'complaints' in the manner he has. His attitude towards certain sections of society have influenced permission from most readers to belittle as 'emotional' and all sorts of other nasty tosh without reading whether there is content. Readers would do well to remember this.
I'm reading this wizard of oz article with some divided fascination however. We've all been put through this and isn't it important that we are perfectly allowed to discuss what is a very strange character and way to behave of these individuals and what might be going on with them? Is there another situation where individuals have put a foot on your neck of your life in some way but you aren't able to discuss why on earth they might do that, or what is wrong with them? But we've been so trained to be cautious.
that doesn't seem quite 'fair'
