For reference, your suspended comment is reproduced below:
2020/05/25 at 12:03 am
And just as a matter of interest, Kempe, have you ever, ever, even once in your life, questioned anything that you’ve been told by “the government”? Can you give me an example? I’m pretty certain that in all the hundreds of posts I’ve seen from you on this site, I’ve never seen a single one that did anything other that faithfully parrot the establishment line.
Is Craig simply wrong about every single thing he ever writes about? The UK-sponsored torture in Uzbekistan? Was he wrong about that too? Is that another thing you know more about than he does?
This is a clear case of criticising the person rather than the point. Indeed your comment doesn’t mention, much less challenge, the point to which you’re replying (i.e. that GSK’s HQ is in Brentford, so Cummings could be expected to travel there rather than to Barnard Castle). Instead your reply merely impugns the integrity of the person who made the point. That’s why the Fair Play rule (“play the ball, not the man”) was cited when your comment was suspended.
When an argument is being criticised fairly, other readers can step in to defend the same point. In this case, the only person who could respond appropriately was Kempe, by explaining his own behaviour and motives. It’s a clear case of argumentum ad hominem and was suspended correctly with a note about the corresponding rule.
The other issues you raise will be considered separately.