In London, site of the cold-blooded Islamofascist train and bus bombings in 2005, terrorism is a serious subject. We already know that the London cops, having shot an innocent Brazilian in string of police errors, aren’t really up to the frightening task of countering such major-league terrorism, and the city is full of hundreds of thousands of home-grown Islamofascists and their imported mullahs who “love death.”

What’s stunning is that, surrounded by real terrorists, the trivial mayor of this vulnerable city, should be so quick to label a Venezuelan blogger as a supporter of terrorism. We’ve never heard him go after Islamofascism – and don’t think Islamofascists don’t notice this – but we hear him go after a lone exile incapable of harm, the leader of whom he opposes just happens to be someone Livingstone wants something from.

Daniel at Venezuela News & Views has a powerful letter to Ken Livingstone asking him why, if Alek Boyd is the supposed supporter of terrorism he casually alleges, he is allowed to walk around freely in terrorist-vulnerable London. The fierce logic of Daniel against the venal irresponsibility of the London Mayor is given the exact attention it deserves. It’s one of Daniel’s best.

He writes:

(L)et ‘s assume for the sake of the argument that indeed Alek is some sort of terrorist. The first question of course is how do you allow him to run free in the streets of London. Are you doing your job? Are Londoners safer under your guidance?

But of course, this is not the real point. That the Mayor of London felt compelled to dismiss such a non-entity as Alek Boyd means indeed that some of the stuff Alek did, said or wrote hit home and bothered you quite a lot by revealing what you are really up to.

Read it here.