But then I’m not a NoPlatformer, so I’ll happily be corrected.

Apologies, I was laying it at my own door, actually. However, it certainly didn’t read like that.

What I was attempting to say, badly as it happens, is that if the man is spewing forth rubbish, then we ought to challenge it. That is the great thing about the internet, that authors are not able to proselytise into a vacuum. The ability to comment is a new and worthwhile freedom.

I am attempting to challenge Richard Barnbrook directly on the Telegraph web site. So far, I am having technical problems, which I trust will be resolved.

You really need to come out of your shell and challenge these folk directly.

Assuming I complained, would you recommend taking it down or not?

I’d respond with something along the lines of:

I’m sorry you found user generated content offensive. We take complaints seriously. Could you be more specific about what in particular you find offensive?

In fact DT circulation is 870,000 versus Guardian’s 350,000.
Interestingly ABC has their websites at level pegging at 18.5m “global monthly unique users”.

Of course mytelegraph is nothing more than a loss leading advert, which is why they don’t employ expensive censors (sorry, moderators) as they do at CiF.

Even if they hang you first, their habit will still lead to them hanging themselves in the end. So let’s give them all the encouragement they need, and maybe they’ll see the error of their ways before they get a flashback of themselves climbing the scaffold!

As for electoral success, there is short-term victory and long-term sustainability, but neither have any bearing on the measure of the other - which is why commentators seize upon any apparent evidence of ‘momentum’.

It seems to me that your fear is a result of acceptance of the validity of extremist arguments combined with a need to seek self-definition and affirmation through opposition. In contrast, I think incoherent arguments are inherently unstable and dangerous in themselves.

What ideas are we giving a platform to? We know they exist, that’s the only thing being discussed. Besides, I’m no worried about LC readers becoming nazis overnight thanks to Barnbrook’s rantings.

If Barnbrook’s blog proves his inability to promote a peaceful and sustainable form of unity and reconciliation among wider groups of society then it will become painfully clear that he will have failed as a politician and his ability to maintain his arguments in the face of evidence and therefore his platform will crumble as a result.

Erm, thomas I don’t think thats his aim. The BNP would electorally be more successful if they promoted strife and hatred than peace.

ukliberty:
Sunny, what I am confused about is why you haven’t complained to the Telegraph about something you seemed to find dismaying (even outrageous). I’m also confused about why you think they would check on Barnbrook’s articles without first receiving a complaint.

Assuming I complained, would you recommend taking it down or not?

I actually find myself on the Telegraph’s side over this one because as has been pointed out here it’s not as if liberal newspapers don’t give a platform to highly contentious and some would say downright obnoxious views, like those of Hamas.

I think the context and situation is different. I’ll explain more in an article which I’m writing now.

I don’t, in all honesty think that the Telegraph is giving him an imprimature. And, frankly, if we can be bothered, what he says is such utter rubbish that it should get torn to shreds.

To be honest, there are two issues here.

Firstly, I have read his fairly odious commentary. Why should we attempt to stop him? It seems to me that he is hoisting himself, quite nicely, on his own petard. Which suggests that freedom of expression is a two edged sword and that he is on the wrong side of the blade. Publicity is not always a positive thing.

Rumbold will be aware of another politician called Terry Kelly. E’nough said.

What would be more of an issue is if the comments were censored, or worst still moderated.

Now that, ladies and gentlemen would be a cause worth fighting.

If Richard Barnbrook is allowed to edit comments - beyond the pale, obviously - then the Telegraph should also accept a ‘Richard Barnbrook Watch’ Blog, that allows the comments that were not beyond the pale. Which would, quite obviously…. And so on ad infinitum.

Second point:

Since when did anyone who was a Libertarian Conspiracist, or whatever we thought we were back then, ever, ever think the Telegraph was less than, shall we say, to the right of Genghis Khan? We should see this as a further desperate attempt at retriangulation - if that’s a word - an appeal to it’s last two paying readers. Know your enemy, I’d have thought.

I actually find myself on the Telegraph’s side over this one because as has been pointed out here it’s not as if liberal newspapers don’t give a platform to highly contentious and some would say downright obnoxious views, like those of Hamas.

As to how long a left-wing blog would last….let’s see because I actually set one up tonight…I would imagine as it isnt an outright attempt at provocation it will last a long time but we shall see…..

Section 6 (particularly the last paragraph of 6.2.2) of this article may be interesting and I think it confirms what you said.