I never thought of it like that before.

Now, even this relatively comforting illusion entertained by the axis of weasels has been destroyed:

How easy it flows from your lips.Melanie

'Britain is still playing a central logistical role for the militants, with extremists, including the alleged mastermind of last year's bombings in Morocco, and a leader of an al-Qaeda cell, regularly using the UK as a place to hide. Other radical activists are using Britain for fundraising, massive credit card fraud, the manufacture of false documents and planning. Recruitment is also continuing. In one bugged conversation, a senior militant describes London as 'the nerve centre'

How True! London is without question the center of International Terrorism!

Melanie-

Thanks for that feedback and undertaking. I'm glad to see that you took out the stoned ramblings posted in response to the article on cannabis. However I think you should have another look at the thread in response to 'The abandonment of marriage', in particular the postings of chuck, frisbee and reuben, the latter of whom included in one of his posts the statement, "To quote one Adoph (sic) Hitler, "God preserve us from the perverts!" This is in addition to a stream of highly offensive homophobic language and large chunks of discredited 'research' from individuals connected to the evangelical right in the states. I suppose that (the research) etc is fair enough, but some of the abuse is truly vile, whatever your opinions on the subject under debate.

I hope you will be aggressive in discouraging any posts you find offensive. It's your site and, as a visitor to lots of them, I can assure you there is a corollary to Gresham's Law at work in all comment sections not ruthlessly moderated.

What is Gresham's Law?

Matt

Bad money drives out good money, basically. But again it all depends how you define each of those terms.

I think the lame attempt at sarcasm which is the first post on this thread - on the wrong thread, by the way - should be deleted.

On second thought it might not have been sarcasm. Just forget it.

Nice to have you back. You add style, substance, humour and humanity to the web.

Glad to see you object to offensive or illegal remarks - on the whole - see your recent marriage article - such remarks tend to come from your supporters.

Hi.

Thanks, Melanie, for excellent blogging, and may 2004 bless you in every way.

And keep running your blog exactly the way you like it.

What definition of offensiveness applies here?
I have read a lot of offensive posts on "Arabs", "gays" and "Jews" on this site and hope they will be dealt with on an equal level.

I'm puzzled. Why was the following removed? Which rule does it violate. It's not offensive. It's not defamatory. It's not a breach of any law. All it appears to be is critical of Melanie Phillips. How does it removal square with her (rather selective) defence of free speech? I think we should be told.

"It's your site so you can make the rules and I have to abide by them.

But I find it hard to reconcile your supposed defence of the right of free speech – which seems to include support for Kilroy Silk's ‘right’ to publish a racist, ignorant and probably illegal article - and yet prohibit others from quoting your own words on this site. It seems to me utterly bizarre that on the Melanie Phillips web site one is prohibited from quoting words written by Melanie Phillips.

I was told that I was not to refer to anything Melanie Phillips had written to me if her words might “embarrass” her. I take the view that if they’re likely to prove embarrassing, you should not write them in the first place. If you e-mail me - someone you have never met – and don’t even mark your mail as private or confidential, you’re not in a strong position if I subsequently and accurately refer to what you have said.

In any event, you should not be embarrassed by anything I might say here. Rather, you should be embarrassed by your own ridiculous articles and diary items. Embarrassed by the fact that you stoke the fires of Islamophobia (much more prevalent in Europe than anti-Semitism and much more dangerous too) and give comfort to those who espouse such vile hatred.

Embarrassed by the fact that on the very day a murder victim gives up his fight for life you can accuse his family of making political capital from their son’s death. And for what? Because they put pressure on government officials to do their job properly when they should have been at peace to nurse the wound of their own terrible grief and – solely as a result of their work – because they prevented a killer from literally getting away with murder.

Embarrassed by the fact that you can call for the prosecution of someone who seeks to understand what drives people to commit awful acts of revenge, as if the judge who tries to understand the circumstances that turn people into criminals should be sat in prison alongside them and the vicar who appreciates that, born in different conditions, he might be amongst the drug addicts he now seeks to help is in fact advocating drug addiction.

And of course there is your routine description of anyone who even dares criticise Israel or Israeli government policies as anti-Semitic, in an egregious, dozy, meaningless smear which is meant to invalidate the other view point and silence all criticism - right or wrong – of Israel and Zionism.

Of course all of this would be explicable – indeed, if I may risk saying this without being prosecuted, I might even understand how such embarrassing words flow from Melanie Phillips’ pen or PC – if she were one of the slow witted extremists who appear to frequent this site. But she’s not: Melanie Phillips is well aware of the truths she twists, the smears she spreads, the hurt she can cause and the nasty bigots she inspires.

So, Melanie, don’t worry that I might embarrass you: you’re doing far too good a job of that to need any help from me."

Brendan, Do I know you?
Have you ever been to St Louis?
If yes, hit me up on ICQ: 136547585.
If not - sorry you just remind me of someone.
regards,
Chris

Not me, I'm afraid.