Dear Sir,

I read with growing incredulity Christopher Famous’s opinion piece of November 25, wherein he attempts a tenuous connection between the “social media-loving Premier” (his words), Michael Dunkley, and comments posted by private citizens, whom he named in his piece, to the Facebook page of the One Bermuda Alliance.

Mr Famous’s objection was that visitors to our isles may be offended by these citizens’ remarks — as unlikely as it is that they would elect to visit the comments section on the Facebook page of a foreign political party.

Let’s forget for a moment that our visitors are far more likely to be offended and made to feel unwelcome by the virulently xenophobic commentary so often heard on the radios playing in our taxis, minicabs, beach concessions and bars than they are by single comments they read on a political site they may happen to stumble upon.

What was noteworthy about your writer’s opinion piece, Sir, was the complete reversal of opinion from that which he had expressed not even six weeks ago.

Under an article plaintively titled, “Are their voices not to be heard?”, Mr Famous wrote: “The masses have taken to creating Facebook groups ... dedicated to speaking about the various issues affecting this Island ... When the people are upset, they will speak. When the people are upset, they will talk. When the people are upset, they will type.

“It is not the media’s place to tell the public what they should or should not be upset about. Nor is it the media’s place to tell the politicians which of the public’s concerns should be championed via social media. #Socialmedia cannot and will not be silenced.”

Mr Famous appears to want it both ways: to publicly name and criticise those who speak out on social media about what upsets them while holding the Government to account for every expressed opinion; yet, on the other hand, claiming to champion the right of the people to speak out on social media about whatever issue upsets them, without interference or restraint from the Government or the media.

In six short weeks, Mr Famous demonstrably made a complete about-face. What could account for this seemingly improbable reversal of opinion?

Whatever his reasons, his criticism of those who take to political social media to voice their opinion while telling politicians and media not to silence such free expression is intellectually dishonest.

Such ambidextrous rhetoric has the nauseating whiff of hypocrisy.

One can’t help but be suspicious now of anything Mr Famous writes because one wonders when next he will reverse course on some supposedly closely held opinion.

INFAMOUSLY NAUSEATED