http://www.thecommentator.com/article/4250/guardian_worldview_at_root_of_national_security_row

and this

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3949/guardian_in_mother_of_all_pro_terror_suspect_fiascos_again

Indeed traitors and moral relativists may well puff up diversionary smoke by complaining about the right wing press, but their agenda stinks to high heaven and eats away at what once was Great Britain like an army of termites.

This is surely about the Guardian, not the Daily Mail.

While the DM may publish a lot of nonsense calculated to produce a head of steam from all right-thinking people (work out for yourselves whether 'right' means 'politically right' or 'correct') the Guardian has published a lot of the Snowden files, showing how the US and UK security forces approach the question of security of the state.

Their publication of these documents is traitrous not because of the content of any particular document, but the ways in which communication between two parties may be monitored. It gives to our enemies an overview of the extent to which we can find out what they say, to whom and how such communication is delivered. The use of ephemeral chat rooms, with the rapid deletion of messages, has been particularly highlighted in the way in which our security people can lock onto them. Thus terrorists have been warned to take even more precautions in their communications and the Guardian has thus removed the more sophisticated terrorist from one facet of overview that had recently proved of great use to the authorities.

This is treasonable.

Indeed to quote from the second link I posted, here is what the inappropriately named Guardian hack Victoria Brittain had to say about Abu Qatada.

"I've been struck by his dignity and lack of bitterness over the treatment he and his family have suffered and I believe that, rather than being scapegoated, his moral standards could have been useful in engaging Muslim youth and healing the wounds in our divided society."

Marvellous. Now, here's why the British government fought tooth and nail to get him deported.

Well even the Guardian has reported that in March 1995, "the preacher issues a fatwa saying it is justified to both kill Muslims who renounce their faith and kill their families," and the paper also reported that in 1999, he made "a speech in London that advocates the killing of Jews and praises attacks on Americans."

I should have mentioned editorial schizophrenia as well.

The guardian website must have been hacked, I can think of no other explanation. It certainly attracted some angry comments.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/11/british-american-aid-subsidises-palestinian-terrorism

The guardian website must have been hacked, I can think of no other explanation. It certainly attracted some angry comments.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/11/british-american-aid-subsidises-palestinian-terrorism

Just goes to show that even the Guardian is capable of portraying a wider, more complex view of the Middle East situation than its critics would believe possible.

Perhaps we wil now see the Daily Mail coming out in support of immigration from Eastern Europe......

I have dug out a qualified approval of immigration from the Mail, which I will post in due course, but here is a cracking expose of the sort of progressive journalist the Guardian seems to find crawling out from under stones.

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/4382/the_trial_of_richard_seymour_the_guardian_s_most_hateful_columnist

When a group of Muslim women laid wreaths in honour of British troops he complained of “sick martial fetishism.” This anti-militarism was from Richard Seymour, Trotsky enthusiast, and champion of Hezbollah. And Guardian columnist, of course.