For the record, and as I have just emailed to Tony Greenstein at the AZNAS site:I'm glad the Director of Communications has cleared things up here.
I regard your wrong interpretation of my comments as potentially libellous.
I do not advocate violence against Tony Greenstein, not now, not previously.
I believed David Herman to be saying the opposite to what you are now accusing him (and me) of.
I believed David Herman to be saying that there are places in the world where dissent can lead to murder - and that this is in direct contrast with the blogging environment where we throw words at each other. Indeed, that is why I referred in my post to "Talmudic disputations".
(As for the email address, its just a technical thing to do with our server).
As it happens I don't follow Tony Greenstein blindly. The earlier post was my interpretation of what David Herman was saying. If that's being "clarified" to mean the "opposite" of an incitement to murder at Hanukah then that's fine. I must say that my interpretation and Tony's and now Roland Rance's, lead one to wonder if communications is Gardner's forté. In fact here's the offending line again from David Herman:
In less forgiving times they would be receiving a necklace for hanukah!I believed this to be a potential death threat. The Director of Communications of the Community Security Trust believes it to be the opposite of a death threat. And I am more than happy to publish his position on this.
Many thanks to Mr Gardner. If David Herman wants to add further clarification he is more than welcome.