Then comparatively speaking it is a mere bagatelle, so why the fuss?

That is particularly awful. The sub-surface Underground is, by nature, the easiest part of the whole system to make step-free. In fact, they could have done it bit-by-bit over the past 20 years and most of it could be accessible by now.

What Gilligan is therefore doing is what he always does - frame the argument into a ‘them and us’ broadside against the ‘disability rights agenda’ as pushed by his neocon mates like Dean Godson. We first caught him at this on the Routemaster/bendy bus controversy invented by him and his friends back in 2005.

It all ties into the general libertarian tax-cutting every-man-for-himself Europhobic Islamophobic public transport hating dickhead wingnut set clustered around the Speccie, Telegraph and various nasty think tanks like Policy Exchange. It’s all propaganda, all the time, and the one thing that ties it together is a desire for less responsibility and fewer taxes for rich people, dressed up as concern for the man in the street. Balls.

“has Gilligan never tried to take a baby, a small child, a large suitcase or an elderly friend/relative on the tube”

He doesn’t have friends and no one in their right mind would lend him a baby. BTW, Boris and co. have already scrapped the step-free access project at Baker Street.

On the original article, has Gilligan never tried to take a baby, a small child, a large suitcase or an elderly friend/relative on the tube? Lifts rather than steps are useful for all the above, not just wheelchair users.

If you re-read what I said, you will see that I said “One of the biggest reasons”, of the people who I have spoken to who have admitted voting BNP, not one has mentioned Islam as a reason. I don’t disagree that the BNP takes an objectionable line towards Islam and Muslims.

M Risbrook : “The BNP hardly said a thing about Islam and Muslims prior to 9/11”

A very quick Google, shows that up to be false, the organisation http://www.stopthebnp.org.uk reports that “As far back as 1996, the BNP were attacking Muslims as being separate from other ethnic groups. Then members were active in campaigns against the opening of mosques in east and south London. They wrote at the time, “The BNP has no objection to Muslims having their own places of worship – providing they are in Muslim countries and not in Britain” they also say “It is clear then, that the BNP see racism against Muslims as a vote winner. Muslims are an easy target for fascists. This is why the BNP cowardly singles them out for abuse. Under British law, Muslims do not exist as an ethnic group, and so technically cannot be the victims of discrimination. In other words, the BNP can goad Muslims and get away with it. This is why the BNP was campaigning against Muslims long before the New York attacks” [my bold]

M Risbrook : “The BNP is even in the process of changing it’s constitution to allow ethnic minorities to join”

The reason for that is down to the Equalities Commission forcing them, not something they would have done if not faced with financial ruin defending and losing a High Court case. Seasoned observers have pointed out that it is unlikely to have much effect as there are unlikely to be many would be members waiting for the change to join, they will still be a racist political organisation.

Rubbish. As a former member of the BNP I can tell you for sure that the marked increase in support is primarily because of Islam. The BNP is even in the process of changing it’s constitution to allow ethnic minorities to join and there is little resentment from those who joined in the past few years who have no problems with non-Muslim ethnics but hate Islam.

The BNP hardly said a thing about Islam and Muslims prior to 9/11.

It will come as little surprise that I am going to take issue with that - affirmative action does harm the very groups that it tries to help, because, it both promotes, and is, racial discrimination.

The UN defines “racial discrimination” as “any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life”.

I don’t have to tell anyone here that the BNP is a racists political organisation. One of the biggest reasons why we have seen such a marked increase in support for the BNP over the last few years is the resentment caused in deprived working class and predominately white communities when they see opportunities given to other, so called, minority communities that are not available to them. The current moves by the Equalities Commission to ban the BNP are playing into the hands of the miniscule membership it has. As they will keep trotting out the same line, so why can it be ok to have a “National Black Police Association”.

Don’t get me wrong I don’t have any problem with the “National Black Police Association” (who fall foul of the UN Definition above) but if you are going to allow them why can’t there be a “National White Police Association” ? – it is a real question – in this age where everyone should be treated the same, by everyone – by employers – by the state it seems that we need to decide are we as a society going to try and eliminate all forms of “racial discrimination”, and if so let’s do it properly and tolerate none.