What “community standards” did this comment breach? #22

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!

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.”

Note well, this is State-sponsored censorship, and it is part of State propaganda.

Censorship is soft terrorism against the citizenry, and is sponsored by the state

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?

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 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.