What “community standards” did this comment breach? #22
The following comment – sent in to us by a reader – was censored by The Guardian. Which of the well-publicised CiF “community standards” did it breach?
Removed comment, posted under the Guardian story on the most recent “Politics Live” blog on Friday 29th of November:
And the gap where it used to be:
….or at least, that’s what would usually go here. But, in this instance, the Guardian mods felt the comment was so dangerous, it had to be totally expunged from the record.
There’s no trace it ever existed, except our website. That’s what we’re here for. Screencap your comments folks.
So: Which of the Guardian’s “community standards” did this comment break?
- Did it? “misrepresent the Guardian and its journalists”?
- Is it “persistent trolling or mindless abuse”?
- Is it “spam-like”? Or “obviously commercial”?
- Is it “racism, sexism, homophobia or hate-speech”?
- Is it “extremely offensive or threatening?”?
- Is it “flame-wars based on ingrained partisanship or generalisations”?
- Is it not “relevant”?
If none of the above – why was it taken down?
See our archive of censored comments. And if you see any egregious examples of the Guardian censoring its “free” comment sections – email us at [email protected], and send us screen caps if possible
SUPPORT OFFGUARDIAN
If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.
For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.
Here’s a challenge for you all. Today I posted on the Guardian live blog:-
“I just cut my finger. I want Jeremy Corbyn to say sorry.”
I got 18 upvotes almost immediately. I checked back later and the mods had deleted it. I guess humour is now a breach of house rules too. GAH!
Ever since the Guardian banned me, I don’t really take them seriously! They self censor any controversial article by not opening comments in the first place. Or they hold them for moderation and release them once the news has been downgraded off the notifications and web trafic has tailed off. It’s all about the restriction of alternative views and the protection of official viewpoints. At the end of the day, it is difficult to get balanced news without reading multiple sources.
How the The G/O stable has fallen. This discussion about impartiality relates to BBC but now could equally apply to the G. And to think before they would be taking the lead in exposing such stuff! Gideon Levy from Haeretz not republished in MSM; a Muslim Imam’s powerful letter to the Chief Rabbi not given any space. The BBC newspaper review deliberately obscuring a damaging headline. This explains it
From commentators on the Independent:
The BBC and MI5.
The BBC has always claimed “political neutrality” and independence from the state, but we doubt many people were surprised when Stuart Hood (ex-Controller at the BBC) was quoted by Channel 4 as saying “there was traffic between the security services and the BBC on appointments and matters of that kind.” Apparently MI5 held lists of people it didn’t want appointing to senior positions in the BBC, and had final say on vetting. (C4, The History of Surveillance, 12/8/2001)
MI5 secretly vets thousands of BBC employees. In 1983, for example, 5,728 BBC jobs were subjected to “counter-subversion vetting” by MI5. Senior BBC figures “covered up” the link with the intelligence agency – leaked documents refer to a strategy of “categorical denial”. (Daily Telegraph, 2/7/06)
MI5 secretly vets thousands of BBC employees. In 1983, for example, 5,728 BBC jobs were subjected to “counter-subversion vetting” by MI5. Senior BBC figures “covered up” the link with the intelligence agency – leaked documents refer to a strategy of “categorical denial”. (Daily Telegraph, 2/7/06)
Also from a Guardian article:
BBC officials asked for help from the intelligence services to carry out political vetting of all journalistic and engineering staff from as early as the 1930s, according to an MI5 file on relations with the corporation.
Employees with communist or fascist sympathies were initially targeted but from the onset of the second world war BBC management tried to terminate the jobs of those with “pacifist or defeatist views”.
The climate of political suspicion which emerges from notes taken of many private meetings reveals that pressure for general vetting came as much from the corporation as from the security services.
“I lunched today with Mr Pym, director of staff administration at the BBC,” records an MI5 officer in November 1937.
“With regard to the general question of vetting BBC personnel, Mr Pym said it would be of great assistance if we could, in addition to giving definite views [on] persons whom we considered unsuitable, let him have a private word regarding others of whom we had record but insufficient reason for giving a definite opinion.”
A secret code was devised to ensure that suspects could be vetoed. “For purposes of easy reference on the telephone,” the MI5 officer explained, “it was agreed that if we said that a certain person qualified for inclusion in category A it would mean we had definite views as to his unsuitability, and if category B, that we had insufficient material to say definitely that we considered the person concerned unsuitable.”
Is the DomCummings account active? And the o/p’s?
I can’t say for sure, but I’ve just googled both user names followed by ‘Guardian profile’. This is usually a quick and easy way to find a user account, but in both these instances the search came up blank.
Though something that I’ve noticed recently at the Groan is the increase of people using anonymous accounts. And by anonymous, I mean accounts that are to all intents and purposes the same as normal accounts, except that the account home page is missing the name, and the date of joining cif. So if you try and bookmark an accounts page, it is bookmarked, but without any identifying name.
I’ve long thought this a bit dodgy, and have at times questioned those with such accounts, asking why they have done this, and also how they have done this. The answers are either not forth coming, or very evasive and defensive. I’ve still not got to the bottom of this.
Note well, this is State-sponsored censorship, and it is part of State propaganda.
But why chide China for doing exactly that? At least in China, this is not done in secret. Their system is benefiting the country and the whole society. In the West, this is being done a sneaky way, contrary to all the democratic practices that we are told we must cherish. The West is broke morally and ideologically.
The question is: Who benefits from the Guardian exercising this blatant/corrupt/dangerous/idiotic censorship?
They simply cannot let such a comment stand. Especially if said comment is getting up-voted. The very idea that our own government could or would carry out such a false flag operation must not, under any circumstances, be allowed to flower.
When cracks appear, the light gets in. So they plaster over any cracks as quickly as possible. In the fight for peoples minds, the unthinkable must not become the thinkable.
I think it’s been pretty clear for a long time that the community standards being breached are in fact the “Deep State Community Standards”.
I feel sorry for Tim Drayton (the author of the post that failed to comply with Guardian groupthink).
It is almost certain he has been sent to a retraining camp where he will be forcefed tedious theories about Labour Nazis (by Freedland & Cohen) the sex crimes of Julian Assange (by Hyde & Ball) and the importance of Americas role as the worlds policeman.
Some people just prefer their ‘news’ to comply with intelligence briefings – that’s not so hard to understand is it?
I think the Guardian would argue, if they ever bothered to ‘argue’, that the commnet was not ‘relevant’ and ‘extremely offensive’ as well as being an absurd conspiracy theory. For them, the very idea that the UK government would ‘manufacture’ such an incident at election time is an outrageous thought, especially as deaths and injuries have resulted from some maniacs bloody rampage. For the Guardian the tastelessness of the allegation that somehow the state’s involved is simply beyond the pale. It’s pretty obvious that bug-eyed conspiracy theories break the Guardian’s standards.
I’d almost been expecting a ‘terrorist attack’ since the election was called, unfortunately. The two attacks during the 2017 campaign dovetailed too neatly with the Conservative campaign line at the time of Corbyn being a ‘terrorist sympathiser’ to have both been a coincidence. The Guardian comment plainly touched a nerve but I am not surprised they took it down. When do the mainstream media ever let people question the narrative or integrity of the spy agencies? The thinking people who can put two and two together are still very much in the minority.
I’d been expecting some staged incident, but imagined the victim would be Corbyn and that the incident would be an assassination attempt.
Still plenty of time for that, mind you, particularly if he wins…
And like Oswald, the person in question did not survive to stand trial, or (in this case) even be questioned, despite having been disarmed and pinned down by the members of the public who intervened. Conveniently, he was wearing a fake suicide-bomb outfit. (Surely, if he’d been going to detonate it (had it been real), he would have done so as soon as he realised he was about to be set upon by the members of the public. So they (the “police”) must have known it wasn’t real. But they shot him anyway. Dead men tell no tales. Convenient that.
Well, yes, especially in view of this.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/09/mike-pompeo-leaked-recording-corbyn-labour-jewish-leaders
I turned on my telly and saw Boris reassuring us that we would always stand up to this kind of thing and I thought right away – ah, another convenient little bomb/truck massacre/stabbing etc. I have a feeling that this coming election will be dirtier beyond my powers of conception. Possibly a few more explosions, butcherings, …hell, I think that little nest of neoliberal vipers up there are shitting themselves so much they’d stage another 9/11 rather than risk seeing JC at no. 10. Speaking of which, the mock list of post-Corbyn victory headlines I previously imagined may well be tried out before the vote. Hitler’s son/paedophile/Sauron. Or possibly kill two with one by faking another 9/11 and framing Corbyn as the perpetrator?
”Something like this always seems to happen when things are not going the right way.”
And here it is…..
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/two-members-of-the-public-dead-after-london-bridge-terror-attack-sources-say/ar-BBXxdY5?ocid=spartandhp
”TWO members of the public have been killed in the London Bridge attack, sources have said. Police confirmed earlier today that a SUSPECT had been shot dead by officers during their response to the incident….. It said that that a number of people had been stabbed and that it was awaiting updates on their conditions. London Ambulance Service declared it a ‘major incident’ and one picture on social media appeared to show a body covered with a blanket….
Sources have told the BBC that two members of the public had died. Several people were stabbed by the knifeman before he was grappled to the ground and ”disarmed” by ‘members of the public.’
Footage on Social Media showed one man being grappled to the ground and disarmed by members of the public on London Bridge. Footage on Social Media also showed one man being urged to ‘move away’ by armed officers before the suspect was ‘SHOT AT POINT BLANK.’
?? So, if he was disarmed by members of the public.. then why was he shot at Point Blank??
When, Another bystander was seen walking away carrying a large knife from the scene?
‘Eyewitnesses said the subject was wearing a suicide vest…. but Neil Basu Head of Counter Terrorism Policing said the vest was ‘FAKE.
The Bridge just happened to be the scene of a ”Terrorist Attack” in 2017 ALSO DURING THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN….. When eight victims were ‘killed’ along with the three terrorists who were also wearing fake suicide vests and armed with knives????
And YES they are convinced that we are all fuc**ng stupid!
I am glad that someone can have the stomach to read the effluvia spilling from this noisome rag, and thus give the rest of us an update on its nauseating contents and opinions. Hard to believe it was worth reading once, a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. I would be concerned about wiping my arse with it, for fear of contracting something noxious and incurable. At least the Sun is honest about appealing to dickheads.
Same here. I used to read The Groan almost on a daily basis for about 15 years. But I haven’t looked at it regularly in nearly 5 years now.
Sid “Licence To Kill” Scurvy, MI5’s Ace Spook, wasn’t too happy about his latest false flag on London Bridge being rumbled. Luckily his old chums Luke Harding and Codswalloper were on hand to cast the offending comment down the memory hole.
Now The Hague
https://www.rt.com/news/474697-hague-stabbing-shopping-center/
I wonder if the cctv cameras just happened to fail……
They were of the latest model: the Epstein 2000.
As soon as I heard there had been an incident I knew it was very much more than likely fixed. Absolute dangerous bastards. The Guardian is really in the pits now. It’s nauseating.
the bbc type asked a witness tell me your story
and it was told
and how do you feel
and we where told
your now back in oxford safe
how do you feel now
still frightened
yes
did it feel unreal like a movie
yes but more like a small tv episode of candid camera grange hill or blue peter.
what was strange was the police got into uniform in the catering van as the winibago was stuck at pinewood studios
emotion is the key locking the blah blah khazar story in
the meme in place in brain fear centres
what is your story says global radios rabbi james obrien
how do you feel now
what with boris the new may
and benji bb nuttyahoo criminal charges
dangerous times ahead
my life already
eec v2.0
That was exactly my first thought and speaking to friends most share the same opinion. There is a lot to be said for “conspiracy theories”. Looking at recent events, something like this always seems to happen when things are not going the right way.
Like that MP’s death?
Be skeptical about media reports of death.
Be skeptical of media reports regarding any matter.
Richard D Hall has a lot to say about the Jo Cox incident
Yes, like Jo Cox’s death. And many of the usual suspects have been “dining out” on that one ever since. Not mentioning Jess Phillips’ name, but yes, including Jess Phillips, the woman who put the mockery into democracy.
it is at times like these that we need to comings together united in colors of banneton
boris today is showing his inner church hills
the evil doers will never be able too destroy are spirits.
plucky tough guy may day
hard as nails cam moron
now pass the port boris 2much johnson
with such believers in zion the terror ists can never win.
we need too thank the army police gchq and mi5 masonic communities and the israeli embassy staff
and bell pottinger rita katz for making us safe with pre warnings pre crimes amd post analysis.
boris has shown tonight the bull dog donmeh turkic spirit that will make him maybe even better than tory liar blair
as a thank you we should all now vote bloater boris
back
tim bell down voted me
how dare you sir
Well it has long seemed to me that The Guardian is likely a propaganda arm of the government; therefore…..
Haltonbrat – They are ALL of them Propaganda Arms of the Government. Their jobs depend upon them ‘selling’ the right message.
Anyone daring to tell the truth is removed… Like John Pilger..
And come to think, the Grauniad is seriously bleeding money, and yet it survives. I wonder how? Private Eye (who are always going on about this) may be on to something here. Although they are as much part of the establishment media as any of them.
Out of politeness, I forced myself to watch a seriously unfunny edition of “Have I Got News For You” last night. It was just as bad as I remember it, if not worse, and Hislop and Merton are less telegenic than ever, as, I hate to say it, is Andy Hamilton (hate to say it because I have a lot of respect for Any Hamilton). Merton can occasionally still be funny, but Hislop is just sneeringly smug. The Radio 4 equivalent has always been much funnier.
Re: HIGNFY, well it’s easy money, isn’t it? I recall Terry Wogan on Room 101 who wanted to put Merton and Hyslop into the tomb because they reminded him of a couple of insufferably superior school mates who went around sneering at everything but never had girlfriends and never joined in anything. Yeah – I can see that. I recall Armando Iannucci being on but I don’t think I could stand the sight of him after reading about his leaping on the Corby-Hitler bandwagon.
I also recall that strained atmosphere on the first show after the J Savile scandal broke when everyone had obviously been drilled into what to say but were appearing to make it all seem off-the-cuff. (“Nobody knew!”)
IMO the BBC are bought and paid for Tories… Hyslop is singularly the most revolting, sniggering, man I have ever seen and put me off HIGNFY long ago.
Although I do confess I occasionally watch it, just to keep in touch but it hasn’t improved any.
Everything that comes from their mouths are lies, they are so afraid of Corbyn, it is pathetic.
As you say Savile became a no go area once it was common knowledge that he had friends in high places???????
And Andrew and Epstein will go down the same rabbit hole.. .
Yes, I’ve gone right off it too. Their treatment of Corbyn is disgraceful and, as a Scot, I find their bias against the SNP quite unacceptable.