How to save The Observer

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article6737876.ece

Why don't put all the best journalists in one amalgamated publication using The Guardian design but call it The Observing Guardian of The Times & Telegraph?

There would then be one national broadsheet but it would be a publication that prides itself on its diversity of views.

There would always be two leaders: one expressing the Libertarian View and the other the Puritanical View.

NB: Libertarians want lower taxes and fewer laws, and Puritans want to tax everything in sight provided they are not the ones paying for it, and want to ban everything they disapprove of.

I really think this could work!

Uncompassionate views not a disaster for the BNP - stand by yours Jeffrey Marshall!

Unlike others, I don't think it is a disaster at all that Jeffrey Marshall's comments have been exposed. Nothing the media say now will stop the BNP doing well.

There is a resurgence of the "Right" on the Continent as we speak, and there is no similar expenses scandal there.

http://sofiaecho.com/2009/05/24/724102_european-parliament-elections-2009-pleas-not-to-aid-extremist-parties

As far as I am concerned, I stand by everything I have said here and elsewhere, but am willing to apologise and withdraw any statement should the need arise and facts and events prove me wrong.

We are all entitled to our opinion and our views, BNP or not. There is no indication that Jeffrey Marshall is about to become dictator and institute euthanasia and mass extermination of whoever it is The Observer and others are trying to suggest he wants exterminated.

There is no stated policy of eugenics and mass extermination in the BNP manifesto or any danger of there being one.

If we want to get upset about something as peripheral as Jeffrey Marshall's opinion about whether the seriously disabled should be kept officiously alive in order to pay lip service to the political orthodoxy of indiscriminate compassion, then surely abortion is an issue that is more immediately relevant.

To say we do not care about those who will always be a burden on the state is not a hanging offence.

Jeffrey Marshall should stand by his comments unless he has changed his mind.
If his comments are indeed hanging offences, then we can ask them if we live in a "compassionate" totalitarian state where expression of anything that is not apparently compassionate-sounding is by definition thoughtcrime.

Perhaps they would like to send confirmation by return.