*ahem*. I’m saying nowt…

You don’t provide a link, but I’m assuming you’re talking about this post, as it’s the only one that seems to fit your accusation. And those following the link will discover various details that you saw fit to omit:

1. The heading "Not to be taken seriously".
2. The unequivocal statement that killing President Bush would be "utterly terrible and wrong" (and also counterproductive)
3. The footnote saying that he’d also throw a party in the event of the death of Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Il, et al.
4. The general point of the piece, which was posted in the wake of the ludicrous Charlie Brooker/Guardian Guide row, which is that one’s personal opinions don’t always run concurrently with one’s respect for morality and the rule of law (indeed, we’d be a nation of the most dreadfully po-faced tight-arses if they did!).

For instance, would it be tasteless to throw a party the very second when Thatcher finally carks it? Undoubtedly, yes – grotesquely so, and it would fly in the face of all notions about respecting the memory of the dead, letting the family grieve, and so on. But how many people do I know – indeed, how many people do you know – who will almost certainly be doing precisely that?

If you see him as being on the opposite side of the political fence because you disagree with almost everything he says, I can only say that’s my very same reaction.

I guess the point of this thread is I really don’t see such a "brigade" at my site. If it was like the Guardian forums – brimming with bigots and morons with scarcely any exceptions – I’d understand why it reflects badly on mainstream conservatism that my site would attract such people. What I have are a few communists and a few nazi types who in fact post all over the place, my site being just one of their haunts, and then dozens and dozens of normal people of varying political stripes.

Though there is a certain irony here, since Laban was bewailing the fact that certain issues are being swept under the carpet – he refers to immigration statistics, while I’m referring to a popular newspaper blatantly whipping up fear and loathing of minority groups on its front page on a more or less daily basis (and don’t let’s pretend there’s any other game plan operating here: people who glance at bold-print headlines aren’t going to be swayed by more nuanced leading articles).

If anything, what the Express is doing now is worse than what its counterparts were doing in the 1930s, as the tabloid format, with its correspondingly much larger headlines, creates a much greater visual impact. By comparison, although it’s famously true that the Mail ran ‘HURRAH FOR THE BLACKSHIRTS’ on its front page in 1934, it was one relatively small-type headline amongst many on a crowded broadsheet.

Laban Tall wrote about immigration because the post was about immigration.

My post was specifically about racism in the media, which followed on entirely naturally from John’s original post, which was about rather more blatant racism in a popular blog’s comments threads. And I’d like to get this back on track, as Andrew Bartlett in particular made some very good points about the dangers of extremist rhetoric becoming mainstream discourse, which is exactly what happens if we allow this kind of language to go unchallenged.

(Just out of interest, Peter, how often do you challenge it? I seem to recall that you’ve mentioned having had private words with W J Phillips, but has there been any time when you’ve actually stood up in public and unequivocally denounced the more flagrantly racist posts by Phillips, Guessedworker and others? Maybe you do – I don’t read your blog often enough to be sure – but I certainly can’t recall any particularly memorable examples. For the record, I entirely agree with Will that it’s unfair to attack you personally over this, as you merely provide the conduit, not the content, but it also seems to me that the likes of Harry et al are rather more assiduously vocal when it comes to countering the looney-tunes brigade. Especially when they’re ostensibly coming from the same side of the political fence).

(Though if it is, I’m sure I can come up with something equally tangential!)

Could you provide the evidence for this? I’d be amazed if the numbers emigrating Britain reached the 1.5 million people that left Ireland in the years 1845-51 out of a population of 8 million or so.

In the whole of the 1930s Britain accepted about 30,000 Jewish refugees – equivalent to about 4 months worth of asylum claims (which didn’t include dependents) when they were at their height. Mr Blunkett has also opened the doors via huge numbers of work permits and no checks on the ‘students’ and ‘visitors’ who arrive and don’t leave. Immigration from outside the UK is at historically unprecedented levels, and emigration of Native Brits is at levels last seen in nineteenth century Ireland.

The left take a two-pronged approach to asylum and other immigration.

1) the Sun’s figures (or migrationwatch or whoever) are wrong. Dangerous ‘cos it implies that were they correct, there just MIGHT be a problem.

2) anyway, we need lots of people to do the jobs that ‘we’ won’t do – (I find that approach a bit dubious anyway) but they never say what will happen when the incomers have integrated/kids grow up, and suddenly are like the natives and won’t work for a fiver an hour.
Presunmably at that point we import a load more, and so on indefinitely.

Although they attack the "WRONG" figures, they never do any research of their own. They’re scared of what they’d find. Easier just to say they’re wrong.

And when all else fails – shout ‘Racist!’ as loud as you can.