 It seems likely that the man who killed David Amos was a violent Islamist extremist. However, in the wake of Amos' death, political conversation has once again returned to one of Westminster's favourite topics, civility online. This was Dominic Robb speaking to the BBC this morning about threats to MPs. I think a lot of people would be surprised at how widespread it is and not just abuse but serious concerted threats. We do see the constant vilification of politicians and MPs, particularly online, but the culture frankly, and I think it's incumbent on all of us as politicians to measure the language we use in debates, particularly passionately held ones, the media as well and the social media as well. So if you like it's a team effort, but the coursing of debate since 2010 when I first became an MP and the polarisation and that has led to much more personal attacks on the individual rather than just passionate debates on the issue, I think that's partly where we've just seen something go wrong over the last 11 years. That was Dominic Robb connecting the threats received by MPs to the more general vilification of politicians. It might seem like a somewhat reasonable point to make. If you hadn't seen what Dominic Robb had been doing for the past six years, namely comparing someone who wanted mild social democracy in Britain to a terrorist, in 2018 Robb shared a Times story and tweeted the following, an appalling indictment of Jeremy Corbyn, I feel for the party, for the many Labour MPs and supporters who will be just as sickened by what is tolerated at the top of their party, Corbyn joins mass killer on global anti-semitism index, Corbyn joins mass killer on global anti-semitism index. That list was collated by the Simon Wissenfall Centre, it's a joke by the way, their list in 2018 had Jeremy Corbyn alongside mass shooters and Germany's ambassador to the United Nations. The latter was condemning both Hamas Rockwitz and the illegal demolition of Palestinian homes. Don't take that list seriously. Another tweet from Rob about Corbyn compared him to Robert Mugabe and Ratko Mladic. As you will probably know, Mugabe has sent out violent mobs to fix elections, Ratko Mladic has been convicted for genocide, Corbyn just wanted to increase taxes. So these tweets are not the sign of a politician debating ideas, they are the tweets of an opportunist willing to use the most misleading and extreme slurs to try and delegitimize an opponent for whom there were many violent attacks against him, there were many violent attacks planned. In both of those cases Rob was boosting articles in Britain's mainstream press and this weekend we've seen a hell of a lot of hypocrisy from the journalists who work in that sector. This weekend Mail on Sunday columnist Dan Hodges wrote a piece arguing the following, so he says it's not okay to hate Tories and it's time for the decent people on the left to say so. In that piece Hodges calls on the left to recognize that Tories are good, honest, decent committed public servants who just happen to have a different political philosophy. Now we could have a philosophical discussion about whether pushing 300,000 kids into poverty through a cut to universal credit or giving immunity to border guards if they drown migrants in the channel are mere differences in political philosophy. However, we don't need to engage in such highfalutin discussion as it's enough to point out that Dan Hodges has not come close to living by his own advice. This was an opinion piece published by Dan Hodges in the days after the Brexit referendum, which was by the way also just days after Joe Cox was killed, so you can see that Labour must kill vampire Jezza and Jeremy Corbyn is in a coffin. We can also take a look at a piece from Hodges in 2017. Dan Hodges, if you're still a member of Labour tomorrow, you are racist. Again, this is not someone who is recognizing that his opponents have a different political philosophy. This is someone trying to delegitimize them in the strongest possible terms. Ash, I want your thoughts on this. It's incredibly frustrating seeing all the politicians and journalists who spent five years demonizing a peace-loving social democrat as a neo-Nazi come out in support of civility and proportion in politics. When it comes to credible threats aimed at MPs, Jeremy Corbyn is a core part of this conversation. The Finsbury Park mosque attacker, Darren Osborne, said that he turned to the mosque attack only after not being able to get at his preferred targets, who are Sadiq Khan and Jeremy Corbyn. Jeremy Corbyn has also been attacked in public. He was the subject of an awful lot of harassment from the far right. And that's before you get to his characterization in the mainstream media as a terrorist sympathizer, as a Czech spy, as somebody who is the kind of demon offspring of Osama bin Laden and Pol Pot. And of course, that characterization in the mainstream press and that kind of vilification had a direct relationship, not only to the far right and kind of stirring that angry nest of hornets, but also then had an impact on ordinary labour canvases who during the 2019 election were punched, assorted. That was one woman who ended up with broken ribs. None of that was covered in the mainstream media because that what that would do is upset their preferred narrative, which is about the unique nastiness and violence and agginess of the so-called hard left. I've told the story multiple times, but when I was on politics live and the whole discussion was about the nastiness of the hard left. So they got me on the panel and then they had a ton of people who weren't at all sympathetic to left or to tell me how scummy my bit of the movement was. And then as soon as we stopped rolling, one of the other panellists literally started screaming and swearing at one of the other ones. And nobody even blinked an eye. And I was like, what the hell is going on here? So there really is from top to bottom in the media. And when I talk about the media, I'm not just talking about senior journalists and producers. I'm also talking about those politicians who are deemed to be sensible. Or, you know, you can you can work with this person. Is that part of how they police the line between legitimate and not legitimate bit of politics is by selectively acknowledging and condemning harassment, threats, violence, immoderate language or violent language. So this is a key part of how the machine operates. Now, I am absolutely not saying that abuse and harassment threats of rape or violence, any of that is legitimate in any context. However, what is going on is a certain amount of filtering out, depending on who the victim or who the perpetrator of that behaviour is. And that's not right.