Livingstone's point, as I take it, was that the reporter should have known better than to collude in the activities of a company that was engaged in a pretty vicious kind of journalism, including a campaign of hate aimed at refugees and immigrants, and gypsies, as well as other minorities

Only a few days before, the Standard's sister paper the Daily Mail had given over its front page to attacking the apology given by Tony Blair to the Guildford Four and the McGuire Seven, falsely imprisoned for years as a result of the actions of agents of the British givernment.

Only yesterday the Daily Mail printed a quite staggeringly racist and vicious cartoon, which could have come straight out of the pages of Der Sturmer. They haven't put it up on their site yet, so you'll have to take my word for it for now.

I cannot see how there was anything whatsoever anti-semitic in telling the reporter that he was in some ways doing something analogous to working for the Nazis. Why did the fact that the reporter declared that he was Jewish be in any way relevant to that, as if somehow that was meant to prove that was above such criticism?