The Daily Mail doesn't know the way out of a hole is not to keep digging, does it? Or is it just milking its infamy for all it's worth? After all, as they say, if there is one thing worse than being talked about, it's ...
Now, first of all, truth is justification enough. Any criticism of Ralph Miliband would be justified if it were true; but there is no evidence he hated Britain. he hated chauvanism and the wilful Blimpish ignorance he encountered in too many British people, but that's not the same thing at all.
So, the latest defence, penned by Stephen Glover, boils down to something I touched on yesterday - somehow, it is okay to traduce Ralph Miliband's memory because some people were unpleasant, vulgar little scumbuckets when Margaret Thatcher died. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander, clamours Glover.
Well, yeah, but in this case the goose being sauced is not the goose that deserves it. Some people did make fools of themselves by ostentatiously celebrating when they heard that Thatcher was dead. And they were vermin. Miliband was not one of them. He condemned their childish hatefilled antics.
Trying to justify smearing his father because some other people are excrement just makes you look stupid.
Of course, before some stupid self-propelling turds were dancing to celebrate Thatcher's death, there was a lot of appalling sludge directed at Gordon Brown. So did that justify the celebrations of Thatcher's demise?
Of course it doesn't. If one person behaves in a way I find offensive, it does not justify me being unpleasant towards a third person. The Mail, however, is trying to claim it does.
As for the Thatcher comparison, that would only be a telling point if only Ed Miliband had got out there and started jigging. The fact that some on the left are stupid little swinebags who celebrated the death of an old woman (George Galloway was one, as I recall) does not justify similar behaviour from anyone else.
Did Ed Miliband celebrate her death? Nope, he condemned those who did.
So basically, the Mail's argument argument boils down to, "It's okay to tell lies about Ralph Miliband because George Galloway is a turd."
Or, to put it another way, dear reader, would it be okay for me to make up stories about Paul Dacre because the Mail smeared Ralph Miliband? Of course not. Which is my point.