I've been following U.K. newspaper reports on the murder of Jo Cox, a Member of Parliament who was stabbed and shot to death by a lunatic last week, in the street outside her constituency office.
I noted in Friday's Radio Derb that:
Ms. Cox is described on the Middle Eastern website albawaba.com as a “passionate advocate for Syrian refugees and Muslim immigrants.”My first port of call when trawling the U.K. papers is MailOnline, the internet version of the tabloid Daily Mail, because (a) it is one of the dwindling number of online newspaper sites that doesn't require a subscription, (b) I was weaned on the very similar Daily Mirror, so London-tabloid format and diction are comfortably familiar to me from far back, (c) it is still the case, though decreasingly so, that tabloid journalists are less punctilious about PC protocols than broadsheet papers—they are, for example, less shy about reporting the race of criminals and terrorists, and (d) their stories almost always have comment threads, which sometimes raise interesting points.
That website further notes that “after being elected last year, Cox used her first speech to Parliament to extol the benefits of having Muslims and other immigrants move to Britain.”
Here's the funny thing: most of the stories MailOnline has been running about the Cox murder have no comment threads.
Here for example is a screenshot of the MailOnline website taken this morning. As you can see, three of the four Cox stories have no comment thread. This continues the pattern of the past few days.
Nobody should be killed for what they believe, and I hope justice will be served in the Cox case. The deceased was, though, an ethnomasochist of the most extreme kind, who worked hard to keep up mass Muslim immigration into the U.K.
Is it over-suspicious of me to think that MailOnline editors, in corralling comments to one story out of four, are reacting to a flood of commentators hostile to Ms, Cox?