I wish I could hook up Voltaire

He must be spinning like a top and could power a small town.

The BNP situation has brought the best and worst out of people and the current systems of debate. I of course have felt moved to pitch in.

I would hope that anything I have written could not be seen as a defence of the BNP (actually I am rather woefully informed on it as a party, but have learned enough not to be keen and hence have tended to ignore it, perhaps foolishly. Thing is, it is a legitimate political party in this country, so I struggle to comprehend why some see it as a special case in comparison to other entities that are allowed to spout views that others might find hard to stomach), but it's safe to say the issue has polarised debate. Sadly it has also resulted in a lot of ad hominems and one of my major bugbears, namely trying to make links between objective statements to subjective associations to try and devalue what is said simply by who is saying having, possibly 'known' someone else.

I tend to respect the views of a poster who stands behind their actual name more, but can these days see sense in a nickname. What can give cause for concern is when you end up involved with an 'Anon' as in the case below. Oddly, whilst initially disconcerted, and perhaps daft not to have figured out one way or t'other still, in this instance I'm hoping was meant to be supportive:

'I clicked on your homepage link and was taken to a blogger content warning, suggesting your site is pornographic.

I was expecting something about re-cycling or the advertising biz.

You'd better check that the kids haven't been up to some practical jokes.'

To which I replied, well, tried to*:

Hmn, the times we are in. Apt in the context of what is being discussed.

Friend or foe? Often hard to tell.

I'd forgotten about that link [to this blog], which gets popped in automatically I guess, so I suppose I'll need to remember to remove it if some are minded to track one from the shadows because they might find an opinion one they need to 'address'.

The reason for that warning is simple and less sinister. Google's Blogger allows you (and I so choose) to give those who venture there the option to warn more delicate souls that things may be of a more robust nature. No porn, at least I don't think so, but strong language can be and is used, though not too often my me. Especially if I link here!

That you were expecting reuse or ad-related stuff suggests you either already know my other activities or persevered through to the site. Horses for courses. I tend not to impose my interest in politics and/or matters of democracy, media professionalism, objectivity, etc on those who are not expecting it or would wish it to be dragged into these other areas. Hence different blogs for different topics. Funny how such diverse areas can often overlap, mind.

It can be... disconcerting... that some can get interested in who you are as much as the value of what you are saying, though how you walk does have a bearing on what you talk, I guess.

But you'll gather that I am not a great fan of playing the person rather than the ball. Hence I find the obsessive and relentless tribalism and pigeon-holing of some (from any 'side') counter-productive to the value of many discussions.

Just the facts, ma'am. Preferably with links. Opinions based on these also fine. Disagreeing, too, but I do find any rebuttals based on defaults to group-think comfort zone collectivist accusations also lacking in value.

*By way of major irony I could not post this on the site in question, which periodically seems to have some glitch that prevents upload.

Gaurdian - A postcode protest against the BNP

Reading through, from the originator (especially) down (with more than a few beacons of hope in the mire, thanks heavens), two things come to mind:

1) Careful what you wish for.

2) Engage brain before booting up PC.

Often I get emails that were not meant to be sent, followed by 'recalls'. I do confess curiosity can get the better of one, but I tend now to assume if it isn't meant to be read, it shouldn't be. The mentality of those combing this unfortunate 'list' to see who they might 'target' is therefore an odd, if worrying one. Especially as all that will be possessed is a few bits of data that may or may not be accurate at all, let alone give any insight into the person who one never knew existed until now, but suddenly demands confrontation through little more than guilt by association. An interesting precedent to set for the future and the next generation indeed.

Telegraph - BNP members should not be hounded out of their jobs - As a matter of interest, should one sign up, Pete Townshend-style, only just to keep tabs on things, but not actually DO anything, as such, wrong, but especially being it's a legitimate (with 'yada-yada obligatory not me either' disclaimer here) political party 'n all, why would being a member even warrant this discussion being raised?