Listening to that now infamous 'discussion', which I originally anticipated might contribute to some understanding of present political attitudes to that contemporary monster "the drug problem", I was skilfully swayed to the point of chunderous disgust. Apparently that dapper little streak of military multitudiness considers his self supposed intimate knowledge of the subject and his irreproachable social conscience commendable grounds for introducing a bill disguised to legislate (in unspecific and uninformed terms) against this mighty menace.

In fact not only is he a political decoy fervently waging a Bartlettion battle against this social scourge (while ministerial mental eunichs introduce even more ignorant and repressive drug legislation), but he also happens to be an incredibly inept political decoy. I don't particularly mind such decoys, but painfully ill-informed, stuttering decoys in the Gill mould tend to piss me off.

The "bad manners" which he was finally reduced to complain of were mild response to the verbal and mental constipation which charaterised his entire performance. That such a non-eventful evangelist should be given a hearing is an insult to the university's existence. I trust any future Parliamentary puppets who so condescendingly favour us with their company will at least be able to curl their self-righteous tongues around a piece of factual evidence to support their attempts to morally re-arm our threatened society. Meanwhile we eagerly await a definition of "bad manners" in the honourable gentleman's next bill - no doubt designed to prevent the asking of relevant questions on prospective legislation.

Harvey Wilson