If I repeatedly commit a crime, I can hardly be absolved of all guilt purely because I stop committing it. Similarly, to argue that the British Empire can't be held morally flawed for slavery because it ultimately turned its back on it seems absurd, and alarmingly lacking in moral sense.

The fact that the girl was clearly very happy for the story to be told is presumably relevant? The PCC codes on privacy obviously only applies when the subject didn't want coverage.

Freedland's article is bad. This post is despicable.

Freedland does not, thankfully, say that making a distinction between Jews and Zionists is dishonourable, though he does make the (worrying) distinction that fear of anti-semitic attacks should prevent us making this distinction in public.

Freedland identifies a real phenomenon. The left hasn't said much about anti-semitism. I believe that's because there is already a concensus against it. The left, as a rule, likes to stand up for causes it believes are being ignored. Take crime. Lefties don't protest against crime, because the idea that crime is bad is well established. They protest about offender's rights or prison reform or police brutality, because they believe these are invisible causes, or ones where the extent of suffering isn't widely known.

The figures Freedland cites for anti-semitic attacks in the wake of Gaza are saddening. But I find it astonishing that, while puzzling about why the left is silent about it, he doesn't seem to consider the possibility that the left simply didn't expect that level of attacks - did anyone? To draw the immediate conclusion - as the article seems to by implication - that it's because of some sort of bias, if not anti-semitism, seems alarmist at least.

If Freedland ignores the most obvious - and least pernicious - explanation for the phenomenon he identifies, though, this post can't even be bothered to properly identify the phenomenon at all. What is this "irrational, hysterical, sentimental, bordering on anti-semitism" behaviour in the british left, exactly? Is Herman referring to the attacks Freedland describes? If so, why is a young anti-semitic youth sympathetic to Gaza automatically deemed part of "the left"?

The idea that Freedland is in "an unseemly hurry" to restate his anti-Cast Lead credentials is also false. He makes one brief reference to it in his last paragraph. Of course it's relevant information. Somebody who supports Israel's actions is more likely to perceive anti-semitism on behalf of those who oppose them, and many of us who do have become used to tuning out those accusations. So he needs to demonstrate that he's not looking at the left through the prism of the conflict itself.

Freedland says that it's possible to condemn Israeli actions and also condemn anti-semitism. The position of the jews suffering attacks doesn't come into it. The "the status of Jewish supporters of Israel’s policy in Gaza" has not been "left to the sidelines"; Freedland clearly says that no jew, regardless of their views on Gaza, should be attacked. Indeed, he goes further, suggesting that we should shy away from separating the concepts of "jew" and "zionist" to avoid inciting anti-semitism.

I'm utterly, utterly baffled why a serious publication like Prospect would allow a post as muddled and silly as this on its blog.

You're right, obviously. But it would be nice to get past "isn't this all a bit silly" and on to "how can we easily fix this?" Interactivity is here to stay, for the most part. What's needed is proper moderation for quality. But that needs staff and costs money, so it's rarely done properly.

"They might ask to see evidence of work, but as parents we don't need that from our children. The State's whole emphasis is on outcomes, but that model doesn't apply to us."

This does not exactly fill me with confidence in home schooling.