This is pretty strong defamation. If the victim were to go to Law for damages, could he get the UK Indymedia title? That is what Windows tells me I am looking at, though the banner across the top on the page says Indymadia UK. I read as UK as United Kollectives.

Racist is particularly insulting in the previous item about EDL member dating a Muslim girl. That has been hidden. Of course she might be a white Muslim which would make Anti Racist look way off beam. Or would it? Are anti racists keen to adopt the Moslem practice of executing those who convert to other Religions? Or did that only happen to one Christian convert who prostletysed in Iran?

You might notice the Article says EDL is a racist and islamaphobic organisation. No mention of the alleged victim being either of these things. Indeed, asking would clarify if the alleged victim is either racist or islamaphobic. He may well be neither and merely a member of the EDL through youthful folly. However, he is self evidently happy to associate with people who are racist and islamophobic and so it is a reasonable mistake for a reasonable person to make.

If ELD associations are just folly on his part, there may be a serious commercial case for wondering if an employee prone to folly is appropriate to the business - but that would be for his employers to consider regardless of the idle and unfounded speculations of other people.

As to the incompatibility of an EDL member being also a member of a business promoting community newspapers - that is for the business to decide. But it is a perfectly legitimate question for interested bystanders to ask of such a business. Realistically accepting EDL membership is something that the business needs to explain: how does it contribute to commercial success?

Defamation requires that the statement carries a meaning that is not fair and accurate. It is fair and accurate to say that the EDL are a racist and islamaphobic organisation. There are racist and there are islamaphobic members. The alleged victim might be neither and he might be both. The article does not say he is either.