You also don’t seem to know much about immigration full bloody stop.

Disillusioned

And as for Ana not reading the Guardian nay more, seriously, unlike many papers it actually covers what goes on and gives some creedance to the fact that the Middle East and the search for peace, is a pivotal news story, more than…oh I don’t know, Princess Diana and Asylum Seekers.

Oh noes! Concern troll is concerned!111!!11!!

And at the first request to actually substantiate his opinions, off he flits, as if he never existed…

As for Martin’s remark: Brilliant. Now that is what I call REAL bullshit.

Indeed. Historically nothing has generated more support for the far right than the “anti-fascist” movement and the various stupidities of the far left.

1.”…it’s has always struck me that most anti-semitism that I have ever come across is generally situated within the liberal left. The Guardian is far more anti-semitic in tone than, say, the Telegraph, mostly (though, on suspects, not solely) because of its pro-Palestinian tendencies…”

To this:

2. “…the point remains that associating all racism as right-wing (which is emphatically what this article does do – even whilst its commenters seem aghast at the possibility that someone might also detect racism in the left-liberal narratives) is simply a nonsense.”

If you can provide a series of articles and explain the link between them, you might be able to argue for a systemic bias in the Guardian.

However, you have done none of these. So put up or shut up. Convince me.

Yes it does.

And with that I think I’ll leave it. Thanks for your comments.

As Sunny said, some people have got to pull their head from their ass when it comes to throwing that phrase around and confusing disagreement with Israel’s foreign policy as being racist.

My mistake.

You know what gives an even greater impression of acceptance? People voting him in to the EU. See how well no platform worked in stopping that?

That’s not true. No platform has been the approach because it means that racism is not given any legitimacy. Allowing someone like Griffin onto primetime political TV gives a basic impression of acceptance because he is going to debate with a cabinet minister and other members of parliament. Of course you can defeat irrational arguments with logic but the assumption that people will respond to rationality rather than an emotive argument that lines up with their own bias is wrong and that’s why no platform is a good policy.

Yes he is. He lied about murders in his area/constituency/whatever the fuck the areas called.

After all, that’s what makes the difference between balanced argument and muddying the waters by insinuating that left-wingers are the real racists, which I’m sure you wouldn’t dream of doing.

As regards inviting the far-right onto Question Time I’m also worried about how this is going to be handled. Griffin is a fascist fuckwit but unfortunately he’s also a well-educated fuckwit and a shrewd political operator. The worst way this could be handled would be through people assuming that all they have to do is shout racist at him and they’ll win because he’s going to dance around the race issue as much as he can and frame his views as something like affirmative action for white people. Confronting him with his direct quotes so he can’t squirm out of the holocaust denial etc needs to happen but at the end of the day the BNP is partly benefiting from an anti-immigration backlash and the case needs to be made against scapegoating immigrants for social problems.

Rather than outbidding him by slating asylum seekers.

Given your reluctance to identify discrete examples, isn’t that rather difficult?