Talk:Nigel Hastilow

Anti-Muslim blog comments
I'm not sure the blog comments are terribly relevant. They played no part in what happened to him, and didn't appear to be any more than part of a long-running obsession that Tom Watson has with Nigel Hastilow. I've not noticed them referred to in any newspapers. I'm open to persuasion, but don't think they add to the article. Pontificake 15:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Long-running obsession? The first time Watson posted about Hastilow was on Nov 2, presumably having been tipped off about the story that was about to break. He shows no sign of having even been aware of Hastilow's existence before that. 172.201.83.240 12:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Surely a third party soorce would need to be found...that is a source other than the actually comments appearing on his blog. I'm under the impression that the comments are not particularly relevant to the article 16:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Francium12 (talk • contribs)

The anti-Muslim blog comments are very relevant. Much of the debate has focused around whether Hastilow is a racist, or whether he hates people because of their religion. I think in this context, the fact that he has chosen to publish extreme statements which solicit hatred or insults towards people because of their religion cannot go unreferenced. Shotlandiya (talk) 11:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If they were notable, we would have serious properly-researched sources showing that he deliberatly allowed them to be published. In the absence of that, we don't have any suitable references, so your claims should 'go unreferenced'. John Nevard (talk) 06:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Right wing bias
Rather like the article about his hero Enoch Powell, the feature on Nigel Hastilow seems to have the smell of impartiality about it.

We are told he claimed no expenses as a councillor and that he had "overwhelming public support" when he erroneously claimed that Powell was right. Who decides that these things are so?

Most of the article seems to be unsourced POV.Multiculturalist (talk) 01:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've watered down the reference to "uncontrolled immigration" which the article records as if it were a fact. Poshseagull (talk) 08:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)