LONDON, England – A few months ago I wrote a short item suggesting that radical Muslim preacher Anjem Choudary might usefully be compared with Johnny Rotten. Thinly argued - if widely slammed - as that post was, it's a comparison that retains value.

A protest against British soldiers in Luton, England.

The real argument, though, as I attempted to clarify in the comments to the original article, is not over the use of the acronym "UK," but rather over the media, and the symbiotic relationship Choudary enjoys with certain sections of it.

CNN itself has not stood entirely above the fray on this, and there's an argument, of course, that this post itself is just adding to the exposure. But I don't see a way round that given the point I wish to make here.

Like Rotten and the Sex Pistols, Choudary knows the media loves nothing more than the opportunity to express outrage. The trick is then to exploit that outrage and fold it back into the greater narrative: the core message aimed at the real audience.

Punk, in its early days, traded on its outlaw status, which gained greater and greater currency the ruder and more shocking the Pistols became. The media lapped it up because they could portray it as a simple story of moral decline and social decay. It sold newspapers, which in turn helped sell records. Which then sold more newspapers, which sold even more records. Everyone was happy.

Choudary and his group, known once as Al-Muhajiroun until it was banned, play a similar game. Last year I attended two of its meetings within the space of a couple of weeks. It's not hard to get in to these events and reporters who suggest otherwise are being disingenuous.

Most, if not all, will have received an SMS from Choudary inviting them to come. Even so, some prefer to come incognito. I've had a cameraman at one event telling me he worked for Hungarian television and a reporter at another purporting to write for the Irish Times newspaper. Both later turned out to be working for British tabloids.

At the first event, held to mark the anniversary of 9/11, the message from the platform was a familiar one. The 9/11 perpetrators were described as "disciplined role models" responsible for a "great day in history." The people of Britain would "one day live under the sharia – so get used to it!" More than enough material for the assembled journalists, perhaps half a dozen in number, to get their story in the paper.

At the next event, a week or so later, this time highlighting "Muslim Youth - Spark of the Fire," those very news stories arising from the first meeting were brandished from the platform like evidence planted on a dupe: "See how they twist our words! This is not a war on terror, this is a war on Muslims!"

Choudary's expertise in all of this has come to the fore yet again with the excessive coverage given to the protest in Luton last week during the parade by British soldiers returned from Afghanistan. A small, though provocative, demonstration, which solicited an angry response from some of those who turned out to salute the infantrymen, garnered acres of coverage in the press and on TV. The Evening Standard, London's main local newspaper, even devoted three pages to an interview with Choudary, including the front-page splash "I want to see flag of Allah flying over Downing Street."

There will be plenty of winners from this. The papers, presumably, were happy with their stories. Choudary and his followers must be absolutely delighted: they can mine this one for weeks, if not months. And the far-right British National Party, the BNP, are exploiting it heavily as well: the story is all over the front-page of its Web site.

The main losers are the vast majority of people - Muslims and non-Muslims alike - who are getting a highly-skewed picture of what constitutes Muslim opinion in the UK. Because no matter how sincerely Choudary and his acolytes may hold their views, their support within Muslim communities is paltry.

Indeed, it's been suggested to me by people intimately involved in de-radicalization that Al-Muhajiroun is losing ground, its followers' heightened public presence over the last six months or so actually born out of frustration over lost momentum.

If that is indeed the case then it's surely time for the media to move on and stop over-inflating the importance of these particular proponents of division and separatism.

LONDON, England– Like a sideshow trying to grab the spotlight during intermission, Geert Wilders'  was determined to come to Britain all wrapped up in the nearly bulletproof veneer of freedom of speech.

Wilders is the provocative Dutch politician currently trying to drum up as much publicity as possible for his film, "Fitna," an uncompromising treatment that describes Islam's holy book, the Quran, as "fascist."

Lord Pearson, a member of the minor UK Independence Party has invited Wilders to Britain in order to screen the film, sending the British government into a spin.

In a statement, the Home Office here said it would prevent Wilders from even entering the UK saying it "opposes extremism in all its forms. It will stop those who want to spread extremism, hatred and violent messages ..."

And the Home Office delivered. On Thursday afternoon Wilders told CNN he was denied entry into the United Kingdom and sent back to the Netherlands.

The Quilliam Foundation, a counter-extremism think-tank founded by former Islamist extremists, seems to have been one of the only voices of reason and thought-provoking sanity in all this.

In a statement, it's co-Director, Ed Husain says Wilders should not have been kept out of Britain.

"Wilders has evidently been convinced by the words and actions of Islamists and jihadists that Islam is inherently violent and intolerant, " he said.

"We therefore challenge him to an open debate in which we will argue that Islam is not an inherently violent religion and that, contrary to what he apparently believes, Muslims are not a threat to Europe and its values."

He adds: "Geert Wilders is undoubtedly an ill-informed, hate-driven bigot with many unpleasant views but he is not directly inciting violence."

Unfortunately though, what Wilders has managed to incite now is the kind of media attention that is worth its weight in gold. Wilders has gained that all-too-sought-after publicity that he so craves.

I first interviewed Wilders in 2006 when indeed his freedom of speech was protected not only by Dutch law but by Dutch muscle. He was under police protection after credible threats had been made on his life.

He  denied being a racist and said his only aim was to prove "our western culture is better than the Islamic culture."

He said his mission was clear: "We should stop being tolerant to the people who are intolerant to us, who want in fact a different society than the democratic society than we have today."

Tolerance: There's that word again, so often uttered and so rarely practised.

I have watched Wilders go from an obscure politician to a now infamous provocateur. Make no mistake, he is not interested in a debate. He is interested in promoting his position on Islam. And Britain has now given him a potent platform.  

Whether you agree with his position or not, I found nothing insightful, original or thought-provoking about Wilders' arguments. It is a shame that any debate about Islam that has so much relevance for so many people should become so dominated by a one-dimensional ideologue.

I can't help asking myself, if the British government had just let him in the country to screen his movie, would any of us even know or care that he was here at all?