Its is more difficult to do this process online, but I think the same rules should apply. If Sunny, or Leon or whoever feels that the quality of debate and entertainment is being damaged by a particular commenter, then I see no problem in cutting them out.

But just like an editor in the press, the online editor needs to have a pretty good, open transparent reason why someone has been banned, in order to maintain credibility. I think the PP editors have met that requirement in this instance.

Perhaps a useful counter-point might be the recent banning of Tim Ireland from Ian Dale’s blog? Were the reasons Tim banned justified? Or was Ian merely supressing views he did not like, or found too difficult to argue against.

From The Times
July 11, 2007
More defections likely as Labour by-election campaign fractures
Greg Hurst, Political Correspondent

Labour faces further defections from its campaign to hold a stronghold seat in a by-election, amid signs of fracturing of support for the party among ethnic minority voters.

The Times understands that the Conservatives are preparing to announce that another group of senior local Labour figures in Ealing Southall are to switch sides, including a prominent member of the Hindu community.

It comes after the defection yesterday of a sixth Labour councillor, a Muslim, to David Cameron’s party, a day after five Labour colleagues on Ealing council, all Sikhs, quit to join the Tories before the parliamentary by-election on July 19.

People like our friend Sunny who I’m sure if he wasn’t at last summer’s ‘We are all Hazbollah now’ protests was at some ‘anti-imperialist’ workshop. The programme did much to explain the Hamasphilia and the khalistanophobia of these lefties.

Lmao! I love these new terms people keep inventing. For the record I think Hamas are an anti-semitic terrorist organisation.

Nobody is saying that Muzumdar is perfect. As Sunny deleted the post, I was not able to read your rebuttal of Muzumdar; Chairwoman says that it was brilliant, which is good enough for me. Surely that is the best response?

Sunny, like any moderator, has a difficult job keeping order. To his credit, he does it rather well, and those who go beyond the pale are usually cast out to general applause. A blog, despite being the ‘property’ of the owner(s), lives or dies by its audience. The fact that a number of persons here want to keep Muzumdar (despite disagreeing with most of his statements) is evidence that he does not disrupt the feeling of community felt on this site.

Just because of the injustices of history or the ‘enemy’ entity, it supposedly justifies the demonisation, fanaticism, bigotry and atavistic hatred and extremism propounded in the name of their own cause.

It’s a form of logical and intellectual autism in the same vein as the ‘Uncle Tom’ blockheads who make that kind of slander as soon as they are criticised or confronted.

It’s the fury and flourish of a drowning man.

Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch don’t preach hatred or retribution or communalist fervour and fundamentalism as a response to historical and political grievances.

I know it’s your sand-pit and you get to decide who can play, but some people enjoy the occasional Troll baiting, or reading it

I know it’s your sand-pit and you get to decide who can play, but some people enjoy the occasional Troll baiting, or reading it

‘But the politics of extremist fanatic religious nationalism, the bigotry, religious fanaticism and hatred fomented ‘

Ah I thought I had seen that some where,oh its India you are talking about

1984 Attack on the Golden Temple 6,000 pilgrims murdered by the army

1984 massacre of Sikhs by the Congress Party (You know that secular party). 10,00o Sikhs killed

General Genocide in Punjab 1984 to 1995 250,000 Sikhs killed.

Kashmir, Nagaland, Assam, Babri Masjid, BJP in Gujrat.Killings of Muslims , Christians, Dalits.

I suppose by exposing this I must be one of the phrases from your Template.
Just look at those websites of the extremist, fanatical, communalist , Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch

I prize his mixture of rant and insight.

Agreed. I’m afraid I’m going to have to add my vote to the “Save Mazumdar” campaign.

He’s like the uncle that you’re terrified about inviting to the next family gathering in case he offends pretty much everyone you know yet again, but who frequently also talks a hell of a lot of sense.

‘You are right. Whereas communism has been discared into the dustbin of history the various ragtag clique of old fogies are running the Labour party in Southall. Most of them are members of the Indian Workers Association an organisation that has direct links to the Indian government. It seems that some kind of pressure may have been applied on the Labour selection committee by Keith Vaz who is another India government yes man.’

Here are a few comments on Mr Sharma’s main supporter, and another of India’s representatives in the UK

BBC

Keith Vaz was elected MP for Leicester East in 1987, and became the first Asian minister in the Commons in 1999. But his recent career has been dogged by accusations of financial wrongdoing.

——————————————————————————–

February 2000: Parliamentary standards watchdog Elizabeth Filkin is asked to investigate allegations of undisclosed payments to Mr Vaz from businessmen in his constituency.

25 January 2001: Opposition MPs begin to question the role the minister for Europe may have played in helping the billionaire Indian Hinduja brothers – linked with a corruption probe in India – to secure UK passports.

26 January 2001: Prime Minister Tony Blair backs Mr Vaz on the Hinduja affair, saying he does not believe he has done anything wrong.

4 February 2001: Allegations in Sunday newspapers of financial irregularities in the funds of Mr Vaz’s local Leicestershire East Labour Party.

Opposition MPs call for him to resign, but he is supported by several government ministers.

12 March 2001: The Filkin report clears him of nine of 18 allegations of various financial wrongdoings.

Elizabeth Filkin accused Mr Vaz of obstructing her inquiries

But he is criticised for blocking her investigation into eight of the allegations.

And he is censured for one allegation – failing to register two payments worth £450 in total from Sarosh Zaiwalla, a solicitor whom he recommended for an honour several years later.

14 March 2001: William Hague, the then Conservative leader, calls on Mr Blair to sack Mr Vaz.

21 March 2001: Mrs Filkin announces a new inquiry, focusing on whether or not a company connected to Mr Vaz received a donation from a charitable foundation run by the Hinduja brothers.

29 March 2001: Mr Vaz collapses while filming a television interview, and goes on extended sick leave.

5 June 2001: A BBC investigation suggests Mr Vaz did not disclose all his property interests to Mrs Filkin’s previous inquiry.

11 June 2001: Mrs Filkin says she is widening her Vaz-Hinduja inquiry to cover the disclosure of property interests.

12 June 2001: Mr Vaz resigns and is replaced as Minister for Europe in the post-General Election reshuffle.

8 February 2002: The second Filkin inquiry rules Mr Vaz should be suspended for one month for “serious breaches” of the MPs’ code of conduct, and a contempt of the House of Commons.