Harry’s Place

Thanks DavidT

In “CIF in Wonderland”, “Bungle” is bad but “Bliar” is good - that speaks volumes.

As I say in the Telegraph blog - CP Scott (the great Editor who put the Guardian on the map in the 19th Century) would turn in his grave to see the Israel hate and antisemitic articles and comments published on the Guardian’s Blog. And I wonder if the average CIF Zionophobe recognises the debt of thanks they owe to Scott - who was an ardent Christian Zionist who helped Weizmann when he was a Professor in Manchester.

“It is a stain on the reputation of the Guardian” - absolutely.

Thank you for this, David from someone also banned from CiF, and who also does not miss it. The Graun is trying, and failing, to find a path between full moderation, and no moderation. To see where the latter leads, try the Newsgroup alt.religion.islam - once a place for real dialogue, now a sustained torrent of dawa versus Islam bashing from mechanical spammers, a dialogue of the deaf. Its only merit is that it does report real incidents that even LGF would hesitate to raise, but you need a lot of time to filter out the chaff and lies.

I fear the Graun suffers from institutional angst, guilt and uncertainty, based largely on ignorance, of the nobility, heritage and centuries of rigorous testing of Western values. What it prints now would shock its readers and editors of 50 years ago. Faced with a large number of people who have reprehensible views, the response is to think that they must have a point, rather than subject such views to any ethical testing. This has also become conflated with the anti-authoritarian instincts of the 68ers and the detritus of failed Marxist dogma to give a completely confused set of values, resulting in a fallback position of moral relativism. Only when that which threatens Israel comes to threaten Islington will such attitudes change.

This nonsense about being allowed to say “Bliar” (which could be slanderous - legal opinion ?) but not “Bungle” is a joke.

You should try to put up an article about it on Cif and if they don’t publish it put it on the News Statesman blog.

The Guardian is now the “die Sturmer” of the pseudo Left.

Is there any good way of determining exactly what the CI(F) policy is? My posts yesterday were all pre-moderated and I never saw them on the blog.

I saw many posts of well known rabid Israel Haters though. They seemed to slip through the moderation.

I wonder why?????

Another piece by Seth Freedman has just been posted on CIF. It exemplifies the problem. Writing about the security fence, he uses the word ‘cancer’ twice, in the full knowledge of its antisemitic Nazi era useage.

And in comes ‘megacephalusll’, right on cue:

********
“From the Islamic, Arabic point of view, it [Israel] is, and rightly so, a mestasticing [sp?] cancer in the middle eastern body politic inserted 60 years ago by a guilt-stricken West… as its ‘Final Solution’ of ‘The Jewish Question’. Nothing more, nothing less, all the wailing by Zionists to the contrary, in their aggressive apartheid theocracy, founded by terrorists.

The US MUST stop letting ‘The Israel Lobby’ driven by ‘Traitor Joe’ Lieberman, AIPAC and their fellow travelers dictate, by political blackmail, policies totally counter to the welfare of the USA!”
******

Where are the Moderators?

Why was ‘Megacephalusll’ not ‘pre-moderated’?

I’ve frequently found the moderation at CiF baffling, but I’m tempted to point out that Harry’s Place is not necessarily in the best place to say that if CiF attracts cranky commenters it is its own fault… Pot/kettle?

Oh, and Freedman is a very bold writer. He always takes antisemites to task on his threads as well, so having a go at him is ridiculous.

“Harry’s Place is not necessarily in the best place to say that if CiF attracts cranky commenters it is its own fault… Pot/kettle?”

But despite the borderline lunacy of some of the regular posters, the debate nearly always stays within reasonable bounds without moderation.

Boo hoo. So CIF takes a rather less tolerant view of anti-muslim hatred than HP. CIF has its quotient nutty hate mongers but HP has no moral high ground to preach from: it has its own selection of nutters which are just as virulent.

I find CiF a very unpleasant place, and neither write nor routinely read the site. In particular, its comments threads are a vile bear pit

You’ve clearly led a sheltered life.

In particular, its comments threads are a vile bear pit

I would say that the same applies to many threads on HP. You are probably inured to it so you don’t notice it. As a relatively recent newcomer to HP it did shock me at first. But then I thought you are probably providing a useful public service in showing me how many deeply unpleasant people occupy the fringes of the Labour Party. As a social liberal who would have automatically voted Labour in the past, that’s very useful to know.

CiF’s malaise is fundamentally cultural. It invites a certain type of audience, but has failed to create an ethos in which posters take each other on in an effective manner.

Oh come on! What a load of pompous piffle. It’s just an aggregator of various articles, with folk chuntering away. HP doesn’t like it; but that’s hardly surprising - it’s the Guardian for chrissakes. These days I think the Times and the Telegraph, even the Mail, are more HP’s territory.

Look, the notion that folk should waste their time getting irate about CiF, creating CiF watch site, is absurd. You pays your money, you makes your choice of political bollocks, left or right.

Let’s face it, most of the people who regularly comment on blogs or sites like CiF, like myself, are just bored people, at work or home, who have little else better to do. It’s a bit like displacement behaviour. The notion that anyone should take any of this seriously simply adds another layer of pointlessness and futility. Give it up, guys.

Right on cue, X sees abuse of Jews as a gloat at HP. Thermaland, at HP, toxic posters e.g. Morgoth are challenged in full view. Although SF ain’t a bad writer his essays are poorly researched and intended to big him up before CiFers (I recall he recently linked to a private business scheme). If challenged/corrected, he screams and shouts as his friends (real and cyber) get weewee everywhere. Or threaten the critics with violence at named locations and times.

Fuck off, Benji.

But despite the borderline lunacy of some of the regular posters, the debate nearly always stays within reasonable bounds without moderation.

Yes, but that’s because it has lower overall readership. CiF is a brand of a large media conglomerate, and a national and well known newspaper, employing well known journalists, with considerable resources to draw upon.

I occasionally pop into CiF comments; its not better or worse than most sites. A few gems of humour and knowledge among all the hot air.

Of course, if a site does want diversity of views - and its something that both CiF and HP strive for to an extent - there will always will be problems with folk who are (or are at least seen as) ‘nutters’. This is the downside of encouraging diversity in the digital and open medium. An alternative is to create segmented zones where folk of like mind chunter away; this will get rid of the ‘nutters’ (or at least they will go elsewhere), but there is danger of increased homogeneity and uniformity.

You love the Guardian tho don’t you benji, cos 1) you’re a member of the pseudo-Left and 2) you want a job there.

What happened last time you applied for a job ? Wasn’t there a big storm in a teacup ?

…the debate nearly always stays within reasonable bounds without moderation.

How true, and here’s a lovely example in which commenters discuss whether Adam Le Bor has taken to writing for CiF because he’s cravenly submitting to dhimmification at the hands of the eastern hordes or merely because he’s just selling his soul to fascists.

Very reasonable, I’m sure you’ll agree.

http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/06/06/commenting-is-free/#comments

I was banned from CiF, but the lazy journalist I contacted merely told me that I ‘must’ have written something ‘offensive’; she didn’t care, didn’t have a clue what this might be. Certainly if I’m ever stuck next to Alan Rusbridger at dinner I’ll give him an earful on this. They don’t ban those who actually make death threats to other users of the site, such as a belligerent lunatic who called himself Khartomi. By contrast Ben Goldacre’s badscience site is very good indeed, little bad feeling, masses of information and highly informed discussion. I even got a link to what remains on the web of the celebrated email question and answer session with the Observer’s ‘Barefoot Doctor’. (Long deleted from the Guardian/Observer site.)One of the funniest things I’ve ever read.

Benjamin

“Let’s face it, most of the people who regularly comment on blogs or sites like CiF, like myself, are just bored people, at work or home, who have little else better to do.”

Benji, you speak mindless drivel because you are bored. Others however have jobs and post here in their spare time because they have beliefs and want to express them. If for no other reason than to prevent idiots such as yourself from hijacking the debate.

I for one wish you would get a job…just not anywhere near me ..

Jefferies aka Khartoumi now calls himself IronSocks. Here is a recent post about him which quickly got deleted:

Comment No. 1397557
June 4 15:49
GBR
To Khartoumi/Ironsocks
As you’re calling for public denunciations of extremist, lets start with a real one, YOU. On June 24, 2007 5:48 PM posting as Leper, YOU sent a link to the Al Qassam site, this site has a lovely “martyr” section, CIF couldn’t delete it fast enough. Was that because of the Anti Terror Act 2006. Here’s a snippet from Section 1
Encouragement of terrorism (section 1): Prohibits the publishing of “a statement that is likely to be understood by some or all of the members of the public to whom it is published as a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement to them to the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences.” Indirect encouragement statements include every statement which glorifies the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of such acts or offences; and is a statement from which those members of the public could reasonably be expected to infer that what is being glorified is being glorified as conduct that should be emulated by them in existing circumstances.”[2]. The maximum penalty is seven years’ imprisonment.
Disseminating terrorist publications (Section 2): Prohibits the dissemination of a publication which is either (a) likely to be understood as directly or indirectly encouraging terrorism, or (b) includes information which is likely to be understood as being useful in the commission or preparation of an act of terrorism. The maximum penalty is seven years’ imprisonment.

Your terrorist glorifying martyr site was as extreme as the poster who provided it, YOU.

You’ve been jumping up and down again over some supposed insult to your ethnicity from Pretzelberg, didn’t occur to the moderators you’re an old white guy from Blighty or do they just give in to your endless tantrums and demands for a quiet life. To try and keep threads as normal as possible when you’re around.

You demand Petra Marquardt Bigman denounce another poster because you don’t like him/her very much for mentioning the sort of Moslems YOU linked this site to in the first place. Those heroes of Al Qassam. Your mania knows no bounds, don’t you recall threatening the very same Petra Marquardt Bigman about getting her head blown off in Hebron.
You are the same dingbat that threatened to send Seth Freedmans details to Syria and other Arab countries. What a memory you seem to have. You’re off your trolley, mate.

You are an extremist, either that or certifiable, this site has banned you more times than any other poster in their history. Someone must like you because here you are as obvious as ever. It could be worse Mr Jefferies, you could be teaching an unsuspecting sixth grade in the UK instead of at the Trinity High School, Khartoum.
Wonder should I send some of your earlier material to your employers, run by a charity isn’t it, if I can get them to publicly denounce and dissociate themselves from you.

Go on, run off crying to the moderators. Whaaa-whaaaa-weaaa. You are an extremist that CIF chooses to still allow a registration from. Why is that, Mr Seaton, answer that before you delete another post for this disgusting person. Remember Mr Seaton, Everything in my post is documented and true, delete mine, delete all his but remember I asked, why is this freak still wrecking sensible discussion on what’s supposed to be a public political forum with his should-be padded history. He doesn’t change, after Al Qassam the coppers should have been brought in. Why weren’t they?

[Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.]

Benji, did Georgina Henry not publically humiliate you on CiF?

Benji, you speak mindless drivel because you are bored. Others however have jobs and post here in their spare time because they have beliefs and want to express them. If for no other reason than to prevent idiots such as yourself from hijacking the debate.

The insults are expected, but consider for one moment that my main point was not about the quality or not of comments. Yes, I made the point in passing that the quality is variable; if you go to any general interest site, you will need to wade through comments to find any of worth.

No, the point is that at these sites or blogs, people are just chatting because they are bored at home or work (they may have jobs, or may not). The central point, of course, is that the whole shooting match is of little importance anyway; getting irate or annoyed about CiF commenters or CiF policies seems rather pointless.

Benji, did Georgina Henry not publically [sic] humiliate you on CiF?

In as much as it was “public” and a “humiliation”, yes, old bean. Golly gosh.

Benji doesn’t mind tho, he spends his whole life on-line being humiliated.

Right on cue, X sees abuse of Jews as a gloat at HP

Well I never mentioned Jews, I mentioned anti-muslim hatred, which undoubtedly does abound here. I suppose I should have added that in addition to be pompously self-righteous about CIF, some commenters ar HP are also terribly thin-skinned about criticism.

Of course the fact that I was, er, publicly noting, on CiF, Alan Rusbridger’s huge pay rise and pension payment increases (based on flat sales and against the background of incessant Guardian bleating about inequality and boardroom pay in the UK), had nothing to do with Henry’s outburst. Nothing at all. Entirely a coincidence, you understand.

Benji doesn’t mind tho, he spends his whole life on-line being humiliated.

Hey, come on, IRL too. :-)

Another one the Moderators missed, from ‘rickb’:

*********
Ziongate: “94.6% of the barrier is actually constructed of metal fence.”

Wall, fence, barrier…..

Aushwitz was surrounded by barbed wire fences. Obviously that meant that those inside the camp were just fine and dandy, didn’t it?

Pathetic.

which I would say likens Israel to the Nazis.
**************

Go back and read the essay, X. You were provided with documented cases of anti-Jewish racism, and can manage only a Benji-like vacuous sneer whilst avoiding the danger of commenting on the subject. As someone who *does* tackle anti-Muslim claptrap in the comments boxes, I would find your infantile obsession with proving yourself superior to a webpage funny were it not so pathetic.

Mainstream media blogs are a waste of time mostly - like megapubs, full of noise and clamour and you can’t find anyone to talk to. Smaller sites are like your local or hangout - you recognise the barmy drinkers so can avoid or ignore them and you can spot those who are worth listening to.

The Daily Telegraph attracts a big share of Muslim bashers so can’t really talk.

Further to Dectora’s comment I think blogs that deal with science or technology are a lot better tempered and better informed. Just goes to show that you should never discuss religion or politics if you want a calm atmosphere.

“HP are also terribly thin-skinned about criticism.”

Amen to that!!!

Go back and read the essay, X. You were provided with documented cases of anti-Jewish racism, and can manage only a Benji-like vacuous sneer whilst avoiding the danger of commenting on the subject. As someone who *does* tackle anti-Muslim claptrap in the comments boxes, I would find your infantile obsession with proving yourself superior to a webpage funny were it not so pathetic

And I should also have added to pompous and thin skinned - take yourselves far too seriously. The way to deal with anti-semites on CIF is to counter them, not to bleat about the wickedness of CIF, because this place is no beacon either. I avoid the Israel Palestine threads on CIF because they are infested with racists on both sides of the question. If the anti-semitism is of a degree that may amount to incitement of racial hatred then the comments should be removed by CIF moderators, otherwise fight them or not. It’s your choice.

Let me share some of my experience with 5Live Messageboard and relate that to CiF. I am an experienced user and watcher of 5Live Messageboards having been banned about 10 times in my long career.

Over some issues of Antisemitism I co-ordinated with CST, BOD and a well-known commentator. If anyone remembers the “Iron Naz” incident (Google it) then I can tell you that the BBC climbed down and removed about 20 Antisemitic posts. (I know because I sent them the list). I will say that I am not sure if I was first on to this since CST were active quite early on. It was at the same time of “Jesus is a B_A_S_T_A_R_D” post and I alerted the Church. Subsequently it made the Daily Mail.

BBC’s response seemed to be that this was free speech - but OK then, we’ll remove them to avoid the hassle. At no time did they offically acknowledge that the posts were Antisemitic.

I have some contact with a blog that tracks Antisemitism and they alerted me that someone had anonymously e-mailed them and allegedly identifying the Moderating company for BBC (who apparently Moderate Ch 4 and a website associated with Prescott at the time he was in Government).

Without wanting to appear racist in any way it seems this company is run by someone with an Asian name which leads to the implication that maybe the staff are recruited from that minority. It would make sense from the company point of view and that is in no way anything to comment on.

However, if it is true that the Moderators substantially come from one section of the Community then it is not difficult to image that personal bias and sensitivity may rule their decisions and personal animosity may also determine their policy.

After all one cannot expect non-Jews to detect Antisemitism. We might suggest that non-Jews are more likely to believe Antisemitic remarks to be normal. In extreme cases a moderator might do all they can to ensure Antisemitic comments remain for their own political purposes. Equally we can believe that anti-Israel stays - pro-Israel goes.

Who police’s the Moderating Companies to weed out bias?

In an exchange by letter with Mark Thompson it was clear that the management didn’t have a clue about the scope of the Moderating company except to quote standards they had met (in on-line underage posting in this case) and other well known mainstream contracts they had (like Ch4 and Prescott’s offices).

So, we might imagine that the Guardian directly employs its own staff to manage CiF but it might be that they employ a third-party company. They cannot then control the whims and prejudices of the Moderators. Maybe this is how CiF is run. You can’t appeal to the same people who are judge and jury and you can’t complain to the Management because they put their trust in the third-party moderators.

To re-iterate, We ask how can the Guardian sustain Antisemitic posts and deny pro-Israel posts and I am saying “Its NOT the Guardian doing it”

Curious things are noted at 5Live too. If your post is pro-Israel then it seems as if someone with anti-Israel sentiment can simply make a complaint and the post goes into limbo for up to several days hence stifling debate.

Anyone who posts at 5Live knows the resident Antisemites like “wendymann” and “brandon”. How is it that these persistent Antisemites never get sanctioned?

5Live’rs back me up on this one!

If any of this places Harry’s Place in an awkward position then simply delete.

Thermaland, at HP, toxic posters e.g. Morgoth are challenged in full view.

Untrue. Some posters are deleted / censored / moderated (take your pick).

Indeed, DocMartyn didn’t last very long the other day on a thread about Yvonne Ridley, when he charmingly enquired whether she’d had her clit removed with a broken bottle.

I think the administration of a website is at the discretion of the owner; neither HP nor CiF are funded publicly, neither has a duty to be either fair or balanced and neither are. If you don’t like it don’t read them.

X of the X said

I suppose I should have added that in addition to be pompously self-righteous about CIF, some commenters ar HP are also terribly thin-skinned about criticism.

Tagnuszlx quoted:

“HP are also terribly thin-skinned about criticism.”

Was there ever a more dishonest commenter here?

Doyle, not half as dishonest as Jared who believes private individuals are immue from anti-racism legislation.

Why am I dishonest Alec? I didn’t state that individuals are immune from anti-racism legislation. You are dishonest to pretend that I did.

As much as the anti-Semitism at CiF is deeply unpleasant, as is the misogyny and Muslim-baiting that occurs here, it’s not actually illegal though is it?

Incitement to racial hatred is a crime, comparing the actions of the Israeli state with that of the Nazis is not, however nasty and ill informed it may be.

Dectora: Bad Science doesn’t really count as it is not hosted by the Guardian or under their control. It is hosted, free of charge by a webhosting company (of which my son is a director) which stepped in after Ben Goldacre was kicked off by his previous host.

My son runs his company on open source, very anti censorship, anti defamation culture principles: quite unlike The Guardian, in fact. See what Ben has to say:

http://www.badscience.net/?p=446

Maven

Fascinating, thank you

Misogeny? CiF and HP are free to set their own agenda. What neither is entitled to do is, as alleged above, protect posters who continually make explicit threats of violence. If responses to borderline racist comments are deleted, while the original remains, questions can be asked.

Despite what X may say, I ain’t defending HP as much as criticizing CiF: sans moderation, individual comments can reasonably be taken as the views of the author; avec, conforming to the views of the site.

Jared

Some of the antisemitism on CIF IS illegal. It is unquestionably ‘Incitement to Racial Hatred’. I have no intention of repoducing it here. It is revolting.

Why am I dishonest Alec? I didn’t state that individuals are immune from anti-racism legislation. You are dishonest to pretend that I did.

Incitement to racial hatred is a crime, comparing the actions of the Israeli state with that of the Nazis is not, however nasty and ill informed it may be.

Jared, you may well be an Antisemite who likes to do it but doesn’t like the tag. You say that Antisemitism at CiF isn’t a crime. Antisemitism IS a hate crime but I suspect you don’t like that label.

Comparing Israel to Nazis is described as Antisemitism by an EU Report into the definitions of Antisemitism and has been debated to be as such by the Parliamentary Committee investigating Antisemitism.

You tick the boxes. You are an Antisemite. Wear your badge with the pride you seek for it.#

“He He I blasted-off a few Y-ds on CiF and got away with it. I knew it weren’t that Anti-Jew fing they keep throwin’ at us. Anyway, its nothing different from that Jew Finklestein. He He (dribble, skull keeps banging on table to activate additional pleasure centres, re-applies bandage to scraped knuckles, has another go at the second “6″ carved into forearm, only another “6″ after this and I’ll be Satan’s Spawn…… He He…”

Another one:

**************************
Illuminatus

A FASCIST… IS A FASCIST… IS A FASCIST…

Irrespective of what RACE, RELIGION, CREED OR COLOUR HE IS!

What doesnt kill you makes you stronger…

Yeah.. but turning your nation into exact image of the 1930’s German National Socialist Party and then selecting another ethnic group who you don’t like for whatever IDEALOGICAL, RELIGIOUS or POLITICAL reason to then commit INVASION, ACTS OF MASS MURDER and TERRORISM on ANY! POPULATION (in the 20th/21st Century)is:

A: NOT KOSHER,

B: An INSULT to the MILLIONS who died during the Second World WAR to Keep the world free of FASCIST EXTREMISM…

C: Just because you Have Infiltrated and now Run the USA as a Puppet state is no excuse either.

D: STOP Harping on about the LOSS of 6Million, THERE WERE OVER 15MILLION CHRISTIANS of All denominations/Nationalities KILLED DURING WW2 in the GAS CHAMBERS!

E: You guys had it easy! STOP FLOGGING A DEAD HORSE!

TRY LEARNING TO:

A: REMEMER THEM! (OF ALL RELIGIONS)!!!

B: RESPECT THIER SACRIFICE !

C: LEARN THE SOCIAL/HISTORICAL REASONS WHY IT HAPPENED

D: TAKE STEPS THAT IT NEVER HAPPENS TO ANY ETHNIC OR RELIGIOUS GROUP ON EARTH AGAIN !!!

in the meantime:

ITS ABOUT TIME EVERY MEMBER OF EVERY NATION TOOK A REAL HARD LOOK IN THE MIRROR

(and stop thinking about ME-ME-ME and more about EVERYONE ELSE!)

There IS ONLY ONE PLANET EARTH!

AND NO-ONE! HAS EXCUSIVE RIGHTS OR OWNERSHIP OF IT!!!
**************************

CIfWatcher, thanks for your kind comments. I suppose if you had Ch4 and BBC Contract then Modding for The Guardian is a natural progression.

Maven - Antisemitism IS a hate crime but I suspect you don’t like that label. Comparing Israel to Nazis is described as Antisemitism by an EU Report into the definitions of Antisemitism and has been debated to be as such by the Parliamentary Committee investigating Antisemitism. You tick the boxes. You are an Antisemite. Wear your badge with the pride you seek for it.

Comparing Israel to the Nazis is not a hate crime. As I previously stated, it might be deeply unpleasant and misinformed but it isn’t a crime. Neither is replacing the stars on a US flag with Stars of David. Neither is calling for a boycott of Israeli academics or produce. They are arguably anti-Semitic, but they are most definitely not a crime, not in this country. And one of the reasons anti-Semitism is not, of itself, a crime is the ludicrous ease with which fools like you toss it around. You tick the boxes. You are a fucking moron.

CiF Watcher - Some of the antisemitism on CIF IS illegal. It is unquestionably ‘Incitement to Racial Hatred’. I have no intention of repoducing it here. It is revolting.

I don’t doubt it. But if you believe the Guardian is actually breaking the law why not report it to the Police?

Jared, I gather Jews *are* classed as a race in law. Also, that HP immediately deleted DocMartyn’s revolting comment makes your claim it supports it difficult to sustain.

moderating doesn’t work anyway. posters just find a way around the bad words by typing them in a way the system won’t pick up on, i.e. A$$ instead of ass.

Alec - Are you drunk today? I haven’t claimed HP support anything, let alone “it”. Whatever “it” refers to in your incoherent comment.

I pointed out that HP had a moderation policy after you claimed that obnoxious posters were dealt with out in the open. Some times they are not - they are deleted. And rightly so in my opinion. Whether Jews are classed as a race in law is not an issue. It doesn’t make anti-Semitism a hate crime. Otherwise, the editors of The Guardian, the New Statesman and the writers of Spooks would all presumably have faced charges in the recent past.

They didn’t because, in this country, anti-Semitic speech is not, of itself, a crime. How hard is that to understand? And if you think I’m wrong, perhaps you could point me to the relevant statute instead of just flinging either insults or incoherent nonsense.

To emphasis the Guardian’s obsession with the I/P conflict, go to:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/israelandthepalestinians

Now try to find something about Darfur on the Guardian where hundreds of people loose their lives violently each week.

Look for something on Burma or Tibet.

Even Iraq and Afghanistan seem to have dropped below the horizon for them but the I/P conflict still obsesses them.

Look for something abour Mugabe where political violence is so commonplace and Mugabe is trying so obviously to subvert the democratic process

(Unfortunately for you, BC, your attempts to defend the real life moderation efforts of a quasi-legal “human rights commission” against “Jewish bully boys” are on record. So, please commence stabbing yourself in the face.)

Jared, if anyone’s drunk, it’s you for assuming I was accusing you of supporting “it”. “It” was the posting of anti-Muslim diatribes, and what I was accusing you of was accusing *HP* of supporting it. That said, at least your position is based around the principle of free-speech, unlike the unpleasantness of Benji and X who define any sneer simply by whatever HP opposes.

Now, you entered this fray with: “I think the administration of a website is at the discretion of the owner; neither HP nor CiF are funded publicly, neither has a duty to be either fair or balanced and neither are”. The allegation is that CiF is objectively supporting anti-Jewish racism and calls for targeted violence against civilians, many which remain up whilst appalled responses are removed. One hour before your comment, CiFWatcher reproduced a comment by GBR concerning the unhinged WB Jefferies who has issued threats of violence against CiF authors and commenters alike [1], linked to terrorist material in probable defiance of the 2006 Anti-Terror Act, was previously banned for posting a fantasy of homosexual humiliation of another CiFer but whom the hooligan gods of CiF have allowed to return to continue as before.

Your response? To suggest that because CiF and HP ain’t publically (fuck off, Benji) funded, the specified complaints are moot. If you weren’t suggesting that private individuals are immune from anti-racist legislation, you expressed yourself very badly.

You have attempted to draw an equivalence between HP and CiF, despite your being able to continue with criticism of the former’s motive for this essay. This simply would not have been possible on CiF (see again GBR’s bodacious post).

You also attempt to equate CiF’s insouciance towards the above with “the misogyny and Muslim-baiting which goes on here” (misogyny?) with a solitary deletion; of Doc Martyn’s comment (didn’t see it, but’ll take your word). The point is that CiF’s, at the very best, tacit acceptance of anti-Jewish racism and violent hatred of Israel is a daily occurrence, as is it’s censoring of criticism both of it and CiF policy. True, some comments on HP do go crashing over the demarcation line of free speech, and are removed. But one instance compared to a policy? That’s weak.

[1] I, admittedly, had a blow-out at the end of a CiF thread once in which I peppered a post with “fuck you” this and that. It was said that WB would have lost his rag within an hour and threatened to punch everyone, whereas I’d finally given CiF an X-rated post!

Further to the above, Doc Martyn’s comment was removed. WB’s call for “friendly bombs to fall on Tel Aviv” remains. As Auden may have said, Betjemin would not have been impressed by the dogs which bark in the nightmare of his dark.

Jared, I might be a ‘fucking moron’ and I congratulate you on a lucky guess. Given you seem to be an obsessive personality I guess you might be echaholic and merely repeating the last thing your mother said to you when you spent your dinner money on Spiderman comics. Anyway,

Comparing Israel to the Nazis is not a hate crime. As I previously stated, it might be deeply unpleasant and misinformed but it isn’t a crime. Neither is replacing the stars on a US flag with Stars of David. Neither is calling for a boycott of Israeli academics or produce. They are arguably anti-Semitic, but they are most definitely not a crime, not in this country. And one of the reasons anti-Semitism is not, of itself, a crime is the ludicrous ease with which fools like you toss it around. You tick the boxes. You are a fucking moron.

Calling Israel a bumnch of Nazis qualifies for Antisemitism since you ONLY use that contrast because Israel is a Jewish Nation. We have no evidence you think EVERY nation in the World is like the Nazis hence your selection of The Jewish Nation full of 6m Jews is CLEARLY Antisemitic. (Ask mummy).

Boycotting Israeli Academics is racist because MOST academics are Jews. The UCU intended boycott is clearly an Antisemitic PROCESS. WHen the CSA catch up with him - ask daddy.

BTW - I just LOVE insults. Feed some more baby. I’m ready for it! Hit me!

..and another on the Freedman thread

***********************
ShatilaGuy

Israel seems to have made it its mision to prove Hitler right.
********************

Maven, less of the antisemitism accuration. Suffice to say, I think Jared is wrong but, at most he is amoral (and plain wrong, re the legality of the Uck-U boycott). Benji and X, though, are immoral.

why don’t you call the police?

What a fatuous comment. Are you going to report me? Or will you simply use the medium of the Internet to express your disaggrement?

David T

” … although I still have author’s rights on CIF … ”

Are you sure? You are not on the new (slimmed-down) list of contributors

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/list/contributors#keyword20

HammerTheClap is right. How much attention does CiF give to Qassam rockets, Hamas treatment of Christians, PA treament of gays, Iran/Iraq treatment of minorities (Assyrians, Jews, …), the Karsenty trial, Muslim treatment of Palestinians and south Asians, the daily violence docmented at religionofpeace.com, the Arab journalists asking, “why isn’t corruption by our leaders prosecuted like Israel does?” etc.

But the Guardian will never provide proportional coverage of these items, because they do not provide sufficient grounds fo propagating and laundering Jew-hatred, one of the Guardian’s principle tenets (as Burchill has testified).

Toxic?

Golly.

Please boycott the Guardian. No decent person should be buying it until they stop the antisemitism appearing.

CiF Watcher, the Guardian newspaper remains above average and somewhat distinct from the Comments in Freefall section, but that point maps back to Jared’s claim that the CiF site is under no obligation to be inclusive and balance. This applies to HP, which is the plaything of Mr Hatchett… not to an arm of the Graun which owes its kudos to its readers. Funnily, it is HP which moderates I/P discussion only in the most extreme circumstances, and CiF which does so daily.

I’ve just seen this essay mentioned at CiF, and am hoping that WB will be stupid enough to post here, where he can’t threaten and badger the administrators. This strange and unpleasant creature has, in the past, had the cheek to call me right-wing as if it meant something and then views the world through the prism of religion identity. He considers criticism of individuals who’re Muslim to be attacks on all Muslims, but most importantly criticism of *him* to be an offence against Islam because, as a screaming narcissist, he is his views. His adoption of his “Faith” ain’t so much a quest for inner peace as a validation of his own absolute, all-encompassing psychopathic world view.

Sure he writes like a lesser angel in the flight of which the creature we call WJ Philips is at the lead, but no more than anyone else in the UK who’s benefitted from state-funded higher education. But, boy does he think himself an filet mignon intellect! I saw his threatening to deck another poster who corrected his Arabic.

So, WB, bring it on.

Who’s “WB”, Alec?

Yes — who’s WB Phillips? What does he post as?

Are Phillips and Jefferies/Khartoumi/IronSocks the same person?

Wait a minute, CIFWatcher. I’ve heard of WJ but not WB. Alec will have to straighten this out tuesday. :D

Britain is a hotbed of anti-Israeli sentiment

By Ron Prosor - Daily Telegraph 10/06/2008

Throughout its modern history, Britain has prided itself on its liberal society, which cherishes human rights and values civil liberties.

That pride was well founded, both in the international arena, when Britain stood alone in Europe facing the dark forces of the Third Reich, and in the domestic field, when Britain led the way in establishing a national health service, granting women the right to vote and protecting the basic social rights of the working class.

During a previous posting to Britain, I developed a keen admiration of this record, and of the core British values of fairness, decency and common sense.

Since returning to these shores as Israel’s ambassador last November,