> The “wrong side” my eye. Haven’t you noticed? His kind of bigotry is practically compulsory these days.

I didn’t say “on the wrong side of every debate throughout our entire society no matter what company he’s in.” He was on the wrong side in the eyes of his employers. Obviously.

> This disingenuous persecution complex that people like you and Mad Mel like to promote about yourselves doesn’t fool anyone.

Really? I’ve said I’m being persecuted? I’m sure, what with my being a blogger, you’ll be able to quote me directly as some sort of evidence of that. Or you could just be talking shite.

> Racial/religious stuff is far more inflammatory and divisive than opinions, however strongly held, on tax-levels.

Yes, it is, but I did give an example about immigration, too. But my point wasn’t anything to do with how emotional people may get about these matters; I was simply responding to Jim’s suggestion that it was Inigo’s job “to present the company as being as neutral as possible when it comes to differences between major communities”.

That being said, let’s imagine he’d said “I think the Pope’s stance on contraception is damaging to Africa.” Would Catholics have been offended? Yes. Would there have been complaints? Yes. Would he still have his job? I reckon so.

> I mean are you suggesting that if he’d said “Low taxes are a good idea because they make society richer” he’d have been suspended because he was on the wrong side of the argument?

No, absolutely not. I was merely giving examples of non-neutral comments that wouldn’t have affected his job. You have now provided another. Thank you.

But is your action actually likely to have any impact in reducing these problems? Or is it just vindictive, divisive, and unhelpful?

A lot of moderates here who have no truck with the like of Wilson, and who should therefore be on your side, are being put-off by your strong-arm tactics. Fight Islamophobia by all means, but I suggest you rethink your strategy.

I’m not so sure about that, Anonmouse. MPAC seem to be endorsing the campaign, if you ask me:

‘MPACUK Success hits the headlines in The Guardian!’

The people who complained were simply using mpac’s forum. I know this because I am one of these muslims that Tim Montgomerie at ConservtiveHome calls an extremist muslim because I complained. Are we not allowed to complain if we are offended?

I am not a member of mpac. I visited their forum 5 days ago. I wrote a template email of complant about Mr Wilson and posted it and emailed it to other muslims. Hundreds of us complained and hardly any were from mpac. Muslims complained not mpac. Muslims.

And why did we complain? because we are fed up of racism and fed up of islamophobia. Here’s an example for those who may think there is no islamophobia or racism against us. Its happening every single day. Yesterday in the Sun, 17 August 2006, Kelvin Mackenzie said these vile things:

“Could the Muslims stop alienating me and, more importantly, trying to kill me?

“Let’s get one thing clear. The vast majority of this country have done nothing but welcome people to these shores no matter how evil their background and religion.”

“The suicide bombers come from one ethnic group.”

“Certainly I would like to see some young Muslims in this country restricted from flying to Pakistan. And if they did go they would have to wear electronic tags so that intelligence authorities would be able to keep track of them.”

What Inigo said offended us muslims not mpac. We just used their forum just like now im using yours.

So write your artcle over because its based on a fiction.

I think that’s a bit unfair S2. Racial/religious stuff is far more inflammatory and divisive than opinions, however strongly held, on tax-levels. I mean are you suggesting that if he’d said “Low taxes are a good idea because they make society richer” he’d have been suspended because he was on the wrong side of the argument? It hardly seems very likely.

Or suppose he’d written a similarly witless “Righty Lexicon” in which he’d defined “Antisemite: someone who questions Israel’s right to do whatever it wants to whoever it wants whenever it wants”. I think it’s entirely possible that he’d have been hounded out of his job by some mirror image group to the MPACUK. And before you dismiss it out of hand, remember that something similar did indeed happen to a certain John Band.

I do think that given his job-title, Inigo’s behaviour was a little unwise, and I have *some* sympathy for Orange’s position, but I’d still wish them to take a stand on a point of principle, and I’m in no doubt who the villains of the piece are. Which is why I’ve unimaginitively jumped on the bandwagon.