[bruiseralmighty]

Such a cowardly defense of the pro-privacy position coming from the Guardian, I wonder if they had trouble sourcing anyone at their offices who were authentic advocates for this position.

The author rightly points out that there was no connection between the killing of Amess and 'social media anonymity'. So I suppose at least they are doing their part to combat that false narrative set up by Parliament.

However, we then launch into one-armed counter attacks about how MPs who cut benefits (ahem Tory ahem) have more of a responsibility to endure vitriole from 'the poors' whose benefits they cut. Yet simultaneously, we should still stomp out 'right-wing-extremists'. Whom I suppose have no legitimate grievances with the government despite the fact that Islamic State can operate within London and kill their political representatives.

[trompetenaccoun]

Well said. The Guardian has become such a rag, the very last time I took them slightly serious was before that Batley Grammar School story with the teacher who's now in hiding and fearing for his life, where they described those issuing the death threats as peaceful and well-liked members of the community whose beliefs should be respected.