about

CPScottAndHDD

“Comment is free but facts are sacred” – CP Scott, former editor of the Guardian.

We provide a home for the comment – & the facts – you no longer find in the MSM.

OffGuardian is the creation of people from different parts of the world committed to the original vision which drew us together on The Guardian‘s CiF pages. We followed with dismay and disappointment the increasingly distorted and tendentious news reporting on Libya, the proxy-war in Syria, and the Ukraine Crisis.  Tired of being censored by our beloved, once-upon-a-time left-of-centre newspaper, in February 2015 we decided to create our own platform for airing our unacceptable opinions.

Our small group is dispersed globally, with representatives from North America, Britain, and Southern and Eastern Europe. The site is our own work, and is not supported by any governments, institutions or pressure groups.

We believe in the concept of truth itself — not merely in that of competing narratives — and  in the sanctity of facts themselves.   For that reason, we shall try to track them down, present them to the public, and preserve them as best we can.  We believe in a true free press that (consistently) speaks truth to power.   And we’ll be doing our little best to remind our mainstream media, including The Guardian itself, that this is supposed to be their duty. They probably won’t listen, but we’ll keep saying it anyway.

If you’re also sick of being stifled, moderated, abused or slandered as Putinbots or worse, and censored to oblivion on any of the Readers’ Comments sections of our mainstream press, come and tell us about it. We operate a completely open comment policy, and all shades of opinion are welcome.

Update April 2015. Off-Guardian.org is the successor citizen-media organization created by the three founding members of the original OffGuardian site. As you may know, our original site suffered an act of internal sabotage on April 13-14, 2015, when it was summarily closed down on us.  Fortunately, we had a back-up copy of the whole site made only a couple of days before this took place and have been able to reconstitute Off-Guardian immediately.  While we might never be able to determine with any finality whether this was an act of a mentally unstable person or of someone with an undisclosed agenda, the attempt to silence us failed.  On here, neither the powers that be nor saboteurs can take us down, slander, or shut us up.

Systematic, BlackCatte, Vaska


257 Comments

  1. Mark Burrows says

    Hi, I have no Rights to a Family under the Conservatives or Labour, this is soon to be the Fifth Christmas I have been separated from my Wife and Son, ignored by the Conservative Prime Minister, the Immigration Minister, the Home Office, the House of Commons, the House of Lords, Social Services and my own Labour MP. I want people to know they have no Right to a Family under the British Government. Thank you, Mark.

  2. Pingback: P is for Phosphorus and for Projection | Worldtruth

  3. The Guardian mods need to be called out for their censorship, and it needs to be done repeatedly. I have set up an account dedicated to doing this at https://twitter.com/CommentNotFree, but it’s not enough on its own. Each tweet is lucky if it gets over 100 impressions. What everyone needs to do is screencap censored posts and then tweet the screencaps with well chosen #’s and @’s, and then people need to retweet and so on. You can’t stop the censorship but you can show it up for what it is.

    4
    1
  4. A Benge says

    I gave a link to Chris Friel’s forensic research into the
    timelines and individuals involved in the anti-semitism
    witch hunt. (Gave no details, just said it was interesting.)
    It vanished without a trace immediately.
    Tried again in a slightly different way, it vanished again.
    My previous comment complaining that Corbyn articles by
    the prosecution never allow comments from the defence had
    also been moderated.It’s getting really sinister.

    • Richard. says

      Yup, all my comments about the rather “one-sided” nature of the comments and particularly my attempts to argue that criticism of Israel’s behaviour should not be considered anti-semitic have been promptly deleted. However, it is interesting that they have been prepared to publish letters roundly condemning Rabbi Sach’s rant in the Spectator. I suspect they are terrified of being criticised as “anti-semitic” by the policy that anything critical of Israel’s foreign policy particularly towards Palestine is to be labelled anti-semitic as a shut-down of debate.

      • A Benge says

        They censor you, then they censor the fact that they’ve censored you.

        3
        1
        • Have you seen the latest sneaky trick? Right at the bottom of an article it says they want you to know that if you use links in it they are getting revenue from them. I messaged reader’s editor asking how can we make informed decisions about it if we don’t see the note until after we read the piece and possibly used said links. The reply was nothing to do with us but we’ll pass it on. Clickbait rules.

      • I would advise asking for an explanation. I always do if a comment has been deleted with no obvious reason – especially if it vanishes without one of those “community standards” notices. They usually give some bullshit reason, but I have had comments reinstated on a couple of occasions. Sadly, I’ve noticed an increasing tendency for other bitl commenters to say stuff like why do you come here year after year if you don’t like the Guardian content? Free speech seems lost on their cheerleaders, but it’s good to see some of the more absurd articles dissed by a majority. Of course comments are sometimes quickly shut down when that happens, or a “comments were opened in error” note appears.

        • A Benge says

          The aim of propaganda being self censorship is beautifully illustrated. To get a comment
          past the firewall you need to speak in code, and avoid every trigger word.
          But what is really sinister is, seeing a lie in an article, having evidence that it’s a lie,
          but not beng allowed to make it public.

          • Indeed. If you say they printed a lie they’ll say you have “smeared” the writer. They are similar to Facebook in that the moderators have the Guardian mindset so inevitably even if some of them try to be fair their bias leaks out. Readers who are clearly of the same mindset get allowed to say abusive stuff that others won’t get away with. When I queried this I was told they don’t have the time to police all threads so it’s up to me to report stuff. As someone who is pro free speech I hate being nudged to being part of a censorship regime.

        • Sandy Robertson says

          My latest encounter with the Guardian has reached new heights of absurdity. One gets used to them deleting comments, but on this occasion I was getting loads of abuse as I politely asked for civility – one person who was previously modded for calling me a liar multiple times was allowed to do the same on this thread without sanction. Suddenly I was told my IP address has been blocked with no explanation. Then I had all comments and replies deleted.

          The reply I got on complaining was that it was all descending into a flame war (ignoring the fact that it was ME who called for civility and refused to have a flame war with the person yelling LIAR at me) and that I was on pre mod for a “string” of comments that dissed the Guardian! If they don’t delete a comment naturally I assume they’re okay with it – to accuse me later of repeating an offensive post’s message when I’d no way of knowing they objected to it, as if I’d repeated something that had been modded is patently absurd. I’m not fucking clairvoyant.
          Of course I’ve escalated to the manager. People say why bother – I say NEVER give in.

          • sabelmouse says

            just lost my forth, or fifth profile, i am done. the site is a joke now, silly articles, no comments, or closed after a few hours, demented moderation/censorship, corporate shilling. to quote my daughter, buzzfeed is better at this point.

            • Sandy Robertson says

              I often feel like that, sabelmouse, but I’m too angry to give them the satisfaction. I just got a response from the mod manager saying of course the moderation was perfectly correct. He didn’t address any of the points I raised re how those breaching standards by abusing me rarely get moderated. I think they only blocked a single comnent in the thread. I rarely agree with Owen Jones on anything, but even he has said he’s not allowed to criticise his colleagues on the Guardian in his articles.
              They either just don’t get it, or they don’t give a stuff.

              • sabelmouse says

                protection of income/corporate sponsors is what they care about.

                • Sandy Robertson says

                  Indeed, sabelmouse. They’ve been outed numerous times as government shills and still haven’t apologised for the lie about Assange being visited by Trump dude though it’s been proven untrue. They have the cheek to bang on about Tommy Robinson getting donations as if that was wrong – meanwhile begging for donations themselves! And they say any criticism of them is a smear. They have lost the effin plot.

  5. sabelmouse says

    just posted this , deleted within seconds.

    This could have been a meaningful article about airtime being given to conspiracy theorists with sometimes dangerous consequences. Wakefield and the anti-vaccination brigade have done immense harm to children across the world.
    what are conspiracy theorist? google the actual history of that term.

    why would a bowl specialist doing a CASE study noting measles virus in their bowels, and speaking out against a already banned elsewhere triple vaccine, and recommending single vaccines instead be a conspiracy theorist?

    meanwhile, he, his later exonerated boss, and co workers were specialists on bowel issues.

    what harm did they do?

    they helped thse children, ask the parents.

    and there have been measles outbreaks in fully vaccinated pops since the 80s. hence more and more boosters. vaccine waning, AND it’s estimated to have a 10% failure rate.

    again, what harm?

    the mmr has caused all sorts, including death.

    and even in africa, a malnourished child [ vaccination contraindicated but still done] has a better chance of health and survival after a measles infection than with the vaccine.

    I FOUND THIS TO BE EXTREMELY INFORMATIVE:

    “Dr. Peter Aaby, “Low mortality after mild measles infection compared to uninfected children in rural West Africa,” Vaccine 21 (1-2): 120-6;

    November 2002

    Children in Africa who got and recovered from natural measles (90% recover even in Africa, and vitamin A doubles their recovery rate) had only one-fifth the all-cause mortality in the subsequent four years as those who either got the vaccine or just did not get natural measles.

    Natural measles is the best possible training for the immune system.“

    Lack of vitamin A and poor nutrition has been acknowledged by WHO as a causative factor in in severe measles cases. Adequate Vitamin A and good nutrition results in mild measles which can have a positive effect on children’s health.

    Low mortality after mild measles infection compared to uninfected children in rural West Africa.

    Conclusion: When measles infection is mild, clinical measles has no long-term excess mortality and may be associated with better overall survival than no clinical measles infection. Sub-clinical measles is common among immunised children and is not associated with excess mortality.

    https://www(dot)ncbi(dot)nlm(dot)nih(dot)gov/pubmed/12443670

    Balance’ isn’t about dragging experts down to our level

    my reply on this article to title comment. both deleted. i wonder why? 😉

    not this as yet.

    that is censorship
    just think, near everyone who knew the sun moves around the earth. those who said otherwise courted death.
    consensus can never be an argument. especially when consensus can be achieved by coercion.
    i am NOT debating climate change btw.
    i am debating consensus.

    reply to this.

    If 97% of climate scientists think climate change is real and being caused by human activity then coverage should reflect that it is a near certainty that this is true. 3% of airtime on the subject should be reserved for those who disagree.

    the guardian, champion of a free and just world!

    1
    2
    • sabelmouse says

      i’d put this on my tumblr, with embeds, and different fonds. and here forgot to draw lines. the top is what i replied to. then my reply + comments from elsewhere, disqus. then another reply to another comment. hopefully not deleted yet. though i will get screaming about not ”believing” in climate change , when that’s not what i am talking about.

      • sabelmouse says

        the last one has been deleted as well + me telling the person i replied to first that it wasn’t nasty.

        comment if free, that is it gives them clicks/advertising revenue. and they do their best to further corporate interests, and fascism.

        along with all the incitement to war.

        still pretending to be ‘’journalism’’ give ‘’ balanced’’ views, and asking for money.

        what a truly nefarious site.

  6. Pingback: Is The Guardian Newspaper Scourge Of The Left It Once Championed? | PopularResistance.Org

  7. Pingback: “Democratic Institutions?” – 10 Lessons From History That Will Destroy Your Trust in the CIA – Site Title

  8. Pingback: “DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS?” – 10 LESSONS FROM HISTORY THAT WILL DESTROY YOUR TRUST IN THE CIA - The Daily Coin

  9. Pingback: “Democratic Institutions?” – 10 Lessons From History That Will Destroy Your Trust in the CIA – Survival Stockpile

  10. Pingback: “Democratic Institutions?” – 10 Lessons From History That Will Destroy Your Trust in the CIA | Patriot Rising

  11. Pingback: “Democratic Institutions?” – 10 Lessons From History That Will Destroy Your Trust in the CIA

  12. Pingback: “Democratic Institutions?” – 10 Lessons From History That Will Destroy Your Trust in the CIA – How to survive when SHTF

  13. Pingback: “Democratic Institutions?” – 10 Lessons From History That Will Destroy Your Trust in the CIA - True Patriot

  14. Pingback: "Democratic Institutions?" – 10 Lessons From History That Will Destroy Your Trust in the CIA | The Daily Sheeple

  15. Martin Usher says

    I find that censorship in the Guardian is a bit more subtle than just moderating comments. They seem to run a sort of “Golden Shield” type setup where the topics available for comment and whether the comments are closed or not varies depending on who the system thinks you are. I noticed this because I can access the Guardian through several different systems.

    I used to like contributing to CiF but I don’t bother that much now because comments are not so much moderated as guided — there’s a world view that they have to agree with or they don’t pass muster. Its a very restrictive world view as well, since I publish comments under my real name and am careful to avoid inflammatory and derogatory posts and the usual raft of conspiracy theories. Its a pity because I’ve been reading (and subscribing to) the Guardian since it was the Manchester Guardian and the modern incarnation is but a shadow of its former liberal self.

    • Sandy Robertson says

      I agree with your view that the Guardian is ever declining. I’m possibly misunderstanding, but you seem to be saying that if one accesses them through certain methods then you can comment on articles that are not open to comment ? Baffled.

      • Martin Usher says

        but you seem to be saying that if one accesses them through certain methods then you can comment on articles that are not open to comment

        No, websites uses a combination of mechanisms to know who you are. The basic mechanism of website cookies has long since been supplanted by other, indirect, mechanisms while web browsers come back with things like ‘stealth modes’. (Its a sort of logical arms race where one side does something, the other counters it and so on.) One way that all this can be defeated is that it relies on you using the same computer or other machine to access a website. If you’re in a situation where you have access to many different machines, different browsers and even different connections tot he ‘net you look like different people to the website. I first noticed this on a workplace development machine, I was idly browsing the Guardian website and saw a CiF thread I could contribute to; when I went to my regular machine the article was there but there was no comment thread (not ‘closed’ but actually absent). Once you start looking you’ll notice this is quite common.

        It would be honest if CiF editoris actually told us what they’re doing and why.

        • So, basically you are saying if I looked at some Guardian articles on a different device I might just find there was a comment thread open when none was listed as open on the daily Guardian email I read on my phone? Again sorry if I’m obtuse.

    • Jan Brooker says

      I used to post regularly as captainbeefheart AND pay a £5p.m. supporter’s sub. Been a Guardian reader for 40+ years, but got fed up of paying for the privilege of being ‘modded off’. Never use foul language or conspiracy theories, but there are comments that are not allowed to be made [so much for Comment is Free] especially regarding Jeremy Corbyn, Zionist Israel or Palestine. Anyway, the ‘i’ is only 0.60p.d. [0.80p Saturdays]. Cheaper, more concise and without a succession of neo-liberal commentators. With 600,000 Labour Party members and a Guardian circulation of c.150,000, the G seems to have a ‘death wish’. What a Business Plan!

    • Edward Kasner says

      I have just had an experience that has finished me with the Guardian forever. I posted this:

      “Today the Mail On Sunday claims that a Labour MP is saying that his party is ‘a sewer’ of anti-Semitism. I would like to ask people reading this post : have they ever heard or read a Labour MP or activist actually say anything that was anti-Semitic? I certainly haven’t, but then I don’t get around much.”

      It was removed in 2 minutes.

      • Sandy Robertson says

        I’d suggest you email them and demand to know what community standard you broke, as I always do. I know they will fob you off 99% of the time but they need to know people won’t meekly accept this. I wonder what they think when they increasingly see comments that show readers think their articles are drivel (don’t actually say that or they’ll say we accept criticism not smears). I have had posts reinstated with an apology a couple of times.

      • Martin Usher says

        The problem is merely that the definition of ‘anti-Semitic’ has been widened by some Jewish organizations to include any criticism of the State of Israel and especially its policies with regard to Palestinians. A big no-no, for example, is to refer to the Gaza area as a ‘ghetto’. Since the whole “embattled outpost of democracy n a hostile environment” thing has worn a bit thin over the years as people realize just how asymmetrical the power — political, military and financial — is in that region its not surprising that the level of criticism has grown to the point where many people regard it as an apartheid state. Whether you agree with this or not the facts on the ground speak for themselves and they’re difficult to counter using traditional propaganda so one tactic is to go after the critics, labeling them as anti-Semitic (if they’re Jewish they’re called ‘self-haters’). Its a crude but fairly effective tactic.

        Attacking the Labour party and especially its leader as anti-Semitic is a bit cheeky considering that the intellectual underpinnings of socialist thought were largely the work of Jews. (So much so that the Nazis used it as a selling point in their struggle against Russia and Bolshevism — communism was apparently a Jewish plot to achieve World Domination!) In the UK the area of London represented by Jeremy Corbyn was notorious for middle class intellectual socialists that wrote a lot but didn’t actually do much (my mother was an unabahsed prole from the East End….there was quite a bit of needle there)(having a brother in law who was one of ‘them’ might be the other reason!). Anyway, I don’t expect modern middle class readers of or even the journalists at the Grauniad to know about this.

        BTW — There was an article in the G. about ‘diversity’ in journalism last week that had an open comment thread. Some wag posted a comment what was effectively a spreadsheet giving the educational background of Guardian contributors. Predictably enough there’s a fair sprinkling of public schools and a preponderance of Oxbridge.

  16. Some folk in the scientific community will expound ad nauseam quoting facts concerning black holes in space… however a black hole is an artifice used to explain a deficit of mass in a century old theory that has zilch predictive qualities.

    Facts are chimeric, they are not sacred.

    ‘Should’ is a word that implies moral overreach.

    I humbly suggest you change your tag/sub heading from the dorky/frumpy ‘cos facts are sacred’ to something a bit more in keeping with the progressive shit you guys are doing!!

    many blessings

    Jim

  17. bevin says

    It is getting a bit ancient now but this piece by Jill Abramson
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/27/trump-fbi-us-constitution

    is amazing.
    She claims for example that because “Strzok had led the FBI’s Hillary Clinton email investigation so the notion of him being a pro-Democratic mole is, simply, ludicrous.”
    Whether she misses the point that Strozk, an obvious Clinton fan, used his position to exculpate Hillary and tone down censure of her action, is unlikely.
    She concludes that “The Republicans want to destroy the public’s faith in the impartiality of the FBI, in order to undermine Mueller. ”
    That’s right “destroy the public’s faith in the impartiality of the FBI” the sort of thing that would have made Hercules toss in the towel. And according to Jill a dangerous affront to the Constitution.
    Her defence of the FBI incidentally relies heavily on the fact that that Watergate’s Deep Throat marched in its saintly ranks.
    The great weight of the 436 carefully culled comments (and cursorily scanned) appear to confirm her fears.

  18. bevin says

    What would the legal implications of helping the good old grauniad out by opening comments on current articles be?
    Take this for example:
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/23/rex-tillerson-russia-bears-responsibility-for-syria-chemical-attacks

    It is the kind of issue-information warmongering- that ought to be commented on by potential victims of war. But the Guardian hasn’t opened it to comment. And, if it ever does, it will kill off any decent ones.

    • Ok. We’ll do it as an experiment and see how it catches on. But good luck getting a link to us pass the mods on there for more than five minutes

      • Sandy Robertson says

        Indeed. Also the fact is the Community Standards are so long and verbose that if they want to bin you they will find a way. Awhile back someone here helpfully advised that I should omit even mild insults so as not to give mods an excuse to censor me – yet I quite often see things like advocating assassination of the POTUS allowed to slide. There’s no consistency but object and they say they don’t have enough time so WE must report things to them. Odd how they ALWAYS appear to have time to censor someone like me who they clearly think of as right-wing. I’m really not, I’m just in favour of fair play to (gasp) even Trump.

        • sabelmouse says

          in a nutshell; don’t upset corporate sponsors, also don’t make us look bad [ as if ] by fighting. we’ll delete everything and pretend rainbows and kittens.

  19. sabelmouse says

    suspended again , this time for mentioning the connection between ed and veganism. no warning either. seriously!
    just proves to me that veganism is corporate sponsored, like the guardian.

    • Admin says

      Don’t suppose you kept a copy of your comment? (we always ask, but people rarely remember)

    • Sandy Robertson says

      They are unbelievable in their alleged commitment to free speech at the same time as they stifle it. Under a piece that mentioned Trump’s Muslim ban, I said that most terrorists in USA jails are not Americans so the ban made sense as they don’t want to be like Sweden. When I enquired why my post was immediately censored I was told it broke standards by being off topic as the article did not mention Sweden! So now alluding for comparison to something is off topic? By that rule, the comments that compare Trump to Hitler would get modded if Hitler is not mentioned above the line…odd how that never happens.

      • sabelmouse says

        now they’ve gone so far downhill i can’t even be bothered.

        • Sandy Robertson says

          I notice that more and more articles get widespread ridicule in the comments, which are often quickly closed sometimes with a note they were ‘opened in error’! The plummeting finances and the begging for donations…none of this appears to give them pause for self analysis.

          • sabelmouse says

            as long as they get clicks/advertising revenue they probs don’t care.

          • Sandy Robertson says

            True. I definitely notice an increase in misleading clickbait headers.

  20. Frank Poster says

    After more than 7 years on the Guardian / CiF I finally deleted my account. I’d made some objective comments the other day about the review of Luke (MI6)) Harding’s book. It was the most subjective PoS I’d read in a long time, but I kept calm and wrote a good argument which got many upvotes and equally good comments in return. It survived for half a day at least, so there was no offence taken by the mod. My guess is that Harding himself took a look and had it removed.

    I feel bad for not continuing, but after seven years, I’m keeping away from the site except for football reports. Unfortunately whilst there today they had two appallingly misandrist articles about men – the long read, and Ms Parkinson having a go at Damon for talking common sense. The Guardian is now overtly acting in an Orwellian manner, working with the Ministry Of (illiberal) Truth to accuse all men of Thought Crimes against women. It’s utterly appalling what’s going on. We can no longer comment there, it’s pointless. How to proceed?

    • The Cad says

      I make the odd sarcastic visit to the Heil and get a better deal from the censors than i ever did from the Graun. I re-registered a few times by pressing the little button inside a wi-fi receiver but they found a way round that.

  21. Thanks for this site guys.

    I stopped commenting on climate change articles on the Graun when my posts were persistently deleted, particularly those following pronouncements of global disaster from Rocky Rex.

    I don’t care if I’m right or wrong on the subject, I do care that my sceptical comments reside aside those of an alarmist.

    BTW, I won’t contribute to your site, nor will I contribute to any other. You rise, or fall on your own success.

    Don’t beg, just get better.

    • Anna Zimmerman says

      “Enjoyment is always bound up with gratitude; if this gratitude is deeply felt it includes the wish to return goodness received and is thus the basis of generosity. There is always a close connection between being able to accept and to give, and both are part of the relation to the good object and therefore counteract loneliness. Furthermore, the feeling of generosity underlies creativeness….”

      ― Melanie Klein, Envy And Gratitude And Other Works 1946-1963

    • Frankly Speaking says

      So how do you think a site existis and can succeed? Via a magic money tree?

      Good journalism needs to be financially rewarded by those that read it and apprecite it, how else can those journalists pay their bills, site hosting, etc? If they don’t charge site access then they need to appeal for donations – I’m referring to this site not the Grauniad. Do you think doing such work should be a mere hobby? Do you think the BBC, Sky, Times, Guardian, Daily Heil etc work for free?

      For you and others to simply stand back, with the comment “I won’t contribute to your site, nor will I contribute to any other. You rise, or fall on your own success. Don’t beg, just get better” is astonishingly aloof to say the least. Why should they bother to write for you? By your stance, they can rise in jouranlistic success, in the quality of their work, but they can fall financially and the site can disappear because you choose not to reward it.

      • Martin Usher says

        I actively subscribe to news sources because Comment might be Free but Journalism certainly isn’t.

        The big question that should be on everyone’s minds is “How much is this worth to me?”. How much should be all chip in a month and where should it go to?

  22. sabelmouse says

    banned by the guardian again, probably for mentioning the dangers of gardasil. and linking this film .

    at least they’re not beholden to corporate sponsores/big pharma.

    • Sandy Robertson says

      I still battle on The Guardian comment threads, probably because I intuit that they’d prefer me to go away. My most recent spat was on a thread about drug abuse. I stated that my GP was offered a license to prescribe heroin. Some guy replied sarcastically, asking if heroin was “legalised” you’d think the press would report it. I replied saying something like “of course heroin hasn’t been legalised,you fool! What did I say that could give that impression…” My post was immediately censored. When I queried it I was informed calling another poster a “fool” broke guidelines! When I pointed out I couldn’t square that with the times I’d been abused in much worse language they’d allowed to stand, they said snootily they can’t be expected to monitor threads and I need to inform them if I’m offended! After that I had a totally innocuous post removed which I finally had reinstated. I’m left with the impression that if you are clearly not a supporter of Guardianesque views moderators, officially or not, target you.

      • sabelmouse says

        they leave all sorts of language all the time.
        i think it’s a mix of saying something that threatens their capitalist overlords, and individual moderator’s issues.

        • Sandy Robertson says

          They claim (ahem) the discrepancy arises because they don’t have time to monitor threads and it’s up to us to flag offensive posts. But I would be really surprised if that guy reported me just for using the word “fool”…and if he did, more fool them for finding it offensive. The community standards are so Byzantine they can be interpreted any way they choose. Criticise one of their writers and that’s a “smear. They actually told me that while it’s ok to abuse Nigel Farage, if he ever wrote an article in the Guardian then it wouldn’t be ok to be abusive about him! I asked does that mean anyone who writes for them is specially protected from being criticised as they’d told me Guardian writers are NOT public figures and only public figures are fair game, not the writers or other commenters. Of course they had no answer.

      • LogicalArgumentsOnly says

        Here’s a tip, take it for what it’s worth. Win more arguments by avoiding ‘Ad Hominem’ – IE – attacking the person. Even if they attack you personally, don’t match it, better it. Focus totally on presenting your logical argument and be happy when your opponent messes up by attacking the person. If I was debating with you and you called me a fool, I would gain confidence that I am closer to winning because you probably don’t know the rules of debate, because the odds would suggest that you don’t recognise the logical fallacies. Study them, practice them and gain confidence when they appear against you. Don’t complain that the moderators are biased, learn, adjust and try not to insult anyone, instead put all of your focus on making really powerful, logical counter-arguments. Hope this helps.

        • sabelmouse says

          i do all that anyways. it’s disagreeing with the article, or endangering their corporate sponsorship/propaganda that gets things deleted/you banned.

          • LogicalArgumentsOnly says

            Fair enough, but for clarity my comment was in reply to Sandy Robertson who said that they had said – ‘of course heroin hasn’t been legalised,you fool!’ If Sandy does this, Sandy is handing them the excuse ‘it was flagged for being offensive’. If Sandy steers clear of insults completely, not only is the argument stronger but they simply cannot use that excuse for deleting it anymore. If there is an agenda, force it out into the open, don’t give them a convenient ‘get out’.

            • sabelmouse says

              i agree but they’ll still get you however polite if you endanger their bottom line.
              but even then it’s somewhat arbitrary.

        • The usual suspects says

          As I agree with you i still have a hard time holding my toung while all around me are idiots. Some thing about calling a spade a spade. him going to work on my delivery though as this is great advice .

    • How in Gods name can you associate this with right or left wing?

      My daughter contracted Narcolepsy, commonly associated with the Avian flue vaccination. Except that she didn’t have the vaccination. So do I condemn the left wing deviants for her condition because she didn’t have the vaccination, so I can’t blame the deviant right wing?

      You are insane.

      • bevin says

        Did you notice that the comment to which you replied was made on August 7th?

          • bevin says

            No. I was suggesting that you were ‘replying’ to a comment which was totally unconnected with the issue which is, understandably, of particular interest to you.
            Unless I am mistaken the August post was one by someone who had just come across OffGuardian and was expressing approval of the idea behind it.

  23. Pingback: Saudi-investor kjøper The Independent | steigan.no

  24. phil bayliss says

    Reading the comments appears to offer evidence that ‘truth’ has become a Deleuzean rhizome. Any kind of discourse appears ‘true’, as it links to other nodes in the media nexus. Everything is true and everything is false. Philosophy used to be clean, but now traduced, so that any kind of personal experience (as a personal truth) is now part of the ‘commentariat’. I would like to believe Vanessa Beelly/Eva Bartlett, as opposed to Boris Johnson (I am at a loss to quote any kind of American ‘source’). Until we can return to a face to face communication moment (which given a couple of billion people on the planet) is obviously impossible, we are generally fucked.

  25. Tom Warwick says

    Admins, I think some of your writers and commenters go completely off the deep end in their vicious attacks on people like George Monbiot. The criterion should be factual correctness, and at least two of the people smearing Monbiot on one of your recent pages (including the article’s author) base their attacks on clear falsehoods. See my comments here: https://off-guardian.org/2017/02/23/a-beginners-guide-to-the-guardian/

    For example, one of the people posting there falsely claims that “Monbiot did support the 2003 invasion of Iraq”. No, he didn’t (and I’ll be notifying Monbiot of these attempts to smear his reputation). I clicked on this person’s gravatar, and found that she writes for The Kremlin Stooge website, and her gravatar-cited website links to a small network of Russia/Putin-friendly websites. I note that OffGuardian also has links to some of these websites (eg The Kremlin Stooge), and that one of the main criticisms seen on OffGuardian is that the Guardian is “Russophobic” or “anti-Russian”.

    No doubt there’s an innocent explanation, but when it goes hand in hand with persistent, calculated smears of people like Monbiot, I start to wonder. What’s the story here?

    NOTE FROM ADMINsee our reply below

    • As to our writers, you’ll have to link to any specific articles we have published relating to George Monbiot before we can comment.

      The rest of your rather regrettable conspiratorial innuendo can be boiled down to this – are we working for/allied with/ payrolled by or associated in any way with the Russian government or any of its organisations?.

      The answer to that is no.

      Yes we are concerned about the irrational and hysterical Russophobia in the media, principally because it has the potential to push us into a war with another nuclear power that will end life on earth. If you don’t share or even comprehend that concern we suggest you consider matters more deeply.

      Do please inform George Monbiot of anything you choose – but we suspect, like most of the Guardian journos, he already checks in here from time to time 🙂

    • Anna Zimmerman says

      Dear Tom Warwick, putting aside the issue of whether George Monbiot did or did not support the Iraq War, your point seems to be that someone that writes for ‘The Kremlin Stooge’ or other Russophile sites should be persona non grata. Perhaps you would like to explain why? I’ve just read through a few posts on ‘The Kremlin Stooge’ and thought they were perfectly acceptable – reasonable, even. Perhaps you do not understand the irony inherent in the choice of name?

      • Tom Warwick says

        Anna, if I were putting aside the concerted attempt to smear Monbiot that I witnessed here, then I’d probably agree with you. But since that was my main concern, I’m curious as to origin of, and reason for, such smears. I’m also wondering if the stated purpose of this site tells the whole story. Since you say that you believe in the “concept of truth” and the “sanctity of facts”, I’m sure you’ll want to make sure that you don’t publish malicious falsehoods in future.

        • Anna Zimmerman says

          You have not answered my question – why should anyone’s stance on Russia matter vis-à-vis the issue of Monbiot? I presume that you mean that this is some kind of litmus test for moral probity, but you have not justified the connection. In order to prove the worth of your point, you need to do more than indulge in the kind of question-begging assumptions about Russian perfidy that regularly grace The Guardian. In doing so you unwittingly demonstrated one reason why Off-Guardian needs to exist – to challenge that kind of lazy ‘guilt by association’. As I said, you may indeed be correct about Monbiot – even the best journalists get things wrong, and I am not an expert on his views and cannot comment – but you have fatally weakened your point by dragging in a complete irrelevance that only demonstrates your own bias.

    • Bevin says

      Are you sure that this a ‘concerted attempt to smear Monbiot”? He is a well known writer in an organ which, by transforming itself dramatically in the past few years, has angered a lot of people who question why Monbiot is still there, almost all other dissenters having been dropped.
      He also adopts a very controversial position on the nuclear question which, again angers many who see him as the guardian’s token green. Finally he is no slouch at smearing others: I recollect a period in which he insisted that any dissent on the received wisdom that Serbia had practised genocide at Serebenica was akin to “Holocaust Denial”. He accused Herman and Peterson of just that, as I recollect, for their research on Rwanda.
      I often enjoy his columns but he is a very ruthless and dishonest controversialist- it is unsurprising that he is occasionally repaid in the currency which he employs.

      • Bevin says

        There is also this, from MediaLens, regarding Monbiot’s silence over the Libyan invasion:
        “…George Monbiot’s March 15 Guardian article contained all three search terms – his sole mention of Libya in the past 12 months – but he was writing about Saudi Arabia: ‘We won’t trouble Saudi’s tyrants with calls to reform while we crave their oil.’ The article had nothing to say about the looming assault on Libya, just four days away. Monbiot has had nothing to say since.”
        https://archive.org/stream/largeandsmallho00kenygoog#page/n61/mode/1up

        The failure to condemn this flagrant aggression was curious, and inexplicable.

  26. Tom Turner says

    So who’s behind Off-Guardian? I came to the ‘About’ page to check out the names. Is it a secret?

    • No one is “behind” OffG. Of the five original founders, three remain and another editor (Kit Knightly) joined. There are therefore four editors in all, all private citizens of Europe or North America. Two of the editors publish under pseudonyms for reasons of personal choice related to their professional fields. OffG is entirely self-funded apart from the small amounts we receive as donations through our PayPal button. We have never received payment from any government, organisation or NGO.

  27. Julie says

    hope you are all watching the daily webcast ‘Where is Eric Braverman’ (now day 72). He was CEO of Clinton Foundation and outed as a leak in the Podesta email. Said ‘Follow the Money’ and disappeared, now missing 72 days. The webcast does exactly that and follows the money Clinton Foundation selling arms, sarin gas and stingers to ISIS and their corruption laid bare. Follow the daily reports and look back from day 50. This should be MSM but not covered.

  28. sabelmouse says

    where is that funny ”they are all russian spies” comment gone?

  29. I have just discovered your site. I was googling something to do with Syria – because I have spent much of the past few weeks reading and thinking about Syria. People like Patrick Cockburn, Robert Fisk, Vanessa Beeley. And I have been slowly coming to the conclusion that the western political class and western media have no concern whatsoever about truth. And I find that frightening.

    Through your site I read an article by Peter Oborne that dated to February. He told of his experiences in Aleppo then. It seems like nobody in the political-media establishment listened then. 10 months later the politicians and media are still trotting out the same things.

    When I came to the words above “We believe in the concept of truth itself — not merely in that of competing narratives — and in the sanctity of facts themselves”, I was really struck. In fact, I was overcome.

    I am so glad that you believe in truth. I am so glad you are doing this.

    However I don’t imagine anyone will listen.

    I find it so sad.

    But keep doing it anyway!!

    • Brutally Remastered says

      If you have not already: look up Eva Bartlett (ingaza blog), a Canadian freelancer who has been in Syria and is eviscerating in her calm, public negation of the fake news being propogated concerning Syria. Might cheer you up, she did me…

      https://youtu.be/ueyWGyddepw
      Fun starts at circa 13:00

      • This is a prime example of how you can be tricked by someone with an agenda … on both sides of the political and ideological divide. Eva Bartlett is not an ‘independent journalist’, nor is she some hero reporting about some ‘fabrications’ in the Syrian war, she does in fact twist facts to fit her agenda, that of supporting the Syrian regime.
        That she blogs for the state-funded Russian media outlet Russia Today would have to raise concerns straight away. I feel for those children this woman thinks are fakes.
        She is either stupid to have been tricked the way she has by the RUssian backed regime, or she is deliberately distorting information, the exact thing she’s accusing Western journalists of doing. https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-eva-bartletts-claims-about-syrian-children

        • Anna Zimmerman says

          Dear Sherylgwyther
          It is clear that the irony of sneering at RT as a ‘state-funded media outlet’ and then citing an article hosted by the British government controlled Channel 4 is lost on you, but no matter. Let us address the article itself, which is a classic example of ‘ignoratio elenchi’, an argumentative fallacy beloved of propagandists everywhere. It may indeed be the case that these particular photographs may be genuine, but that hardly constitutes the most important element of Ms Bartlett’s work. I notice that the Channel 4 article steers well clear of addressing her most cogent points – that Syria under Assad was never the hell on earth portrayed by the Western media, that the ‘civil war’ was always deliberately engineered by interested powers intent on regime change and that the majority of the Syrian public would dearly love a return to the status quo ante and overwhelmingly blame the West for the destruction of the last years. Clearly Channel 4 has nothing to say on these subjects, other than merely parroting the official line which is increasingly wearing thin in the face of the evidence. Their inability to properly address these points is damning enough in itself.

          • Anna Zimmerman, the funny thing is I’m usually very cynical about the western press (esp those owned by Rupert Murdoch). They’re all pushing agendas to further capitalism and ultimately, the big oil and coal company billionaires who refuse to heed the message that fossil fuel is on its way out.
            My big concern is that Russia Today falls into the same category as Murdoch’s The Australian – pushing agendas one way or another.
            Truly thoughtful and analytical people would question Bartlett’s work as much as they’d question anyone’s – taking one side so completely against another is as bad as taking Murdoch’s crap as gospel truth. Bartlett made the mistake of going overboard and not checking her so called facts properly. Therefore, her valid points were ‘lost in translation’.

            • pavlovscat7 says

              As a career move Sheryl…You should get a film crew together and go and volunteer in the Israeli medical facilities in the stolen Golan Heights…that are doing fine hippocratic work there, patching up the wounded Jihadis and sending them back into the fray in Syria. Don’t let the film crew disturb the drilling works going on there under the boerse horse trading auspices of Rupert Murdoch and Baron Rothschild though.. Haaretz is the only media that is allowed to laugh at that amorality:

            • Anna Zimmerman says

              Hello Sherylgwyther, thanks for the reply. I would certainly agree that RT has an ‘agenda’ to push, and from time to time they do irritate me because they tend to focus on a fairly narrow range of stories for their news coverage (although their documentaries are often excellent and certainly far more varied in terms of subject matter). However within the scope of that agenda I have found them to be a far more reliable source of information than any of the other state-funded outlets. Syria is just one example of this amongst many. As a contrast, I find BBC documentaries and ‘news’ programmes so distorted as to be almost unwatchable. I subscribe to a very large range of news sources and also read academic books on world politics/finance/economics/history/philosophy/anthropology, so I am able to ‘triangulate’ sources and discard the very glaring deviations from reality that we are asked to swallow whole. Eva Bartlett is far from a lone voice, as I have observed from years of learning about the Middle East. I also have students from the area from time to time, who share their experiences. I find nothing remarkable in her writing, because the woes of Western interventionism are a familiar theme for any serious scholar of post-war international relations. Here is William Blum’s infamous list of instances when the US attempted/succeeded in overthrowing foreign governments: https://williamblum.org/essays/read/overthrowing-other-peoples-governments-the-master-list
              I mention these because the US has developed a set of strategies for the purpose, many of which they have clearly used in the Syrian theatre – long term funding of NGOs to promote ‘democracy’ and ‘human rights’, hijacking legitimate civilian protests often through the use of paramilitary forces, paying said paramilitaries to act as proxy armies (often through a circuitous route so there are proxies within proxies), mass propaganda, particularly aimed at discrediting the existing regime, funnelling arms, providing military ‘advisors’, covert operations, accusations of biological warfare or similar, false flags…I could go on and on. The point is that it would take a wilfully blind and/or ignorant person not to notice that Syria is just business as usual for the West – and I cannot attribute any more nobility to their aims on this occasion than on any other.

              • Totally agree, Anna. But in the end, I trust neither the Americans nor the Russians. I think both Trump and Putin should be in jail, for what they’ve already done against human and civil rights, and for what they will do to all of us in the future. Both are evil dictators and I can’t wait to see them get true justice in the end. Preferably a firing squad.

                • Frank says

                  ”Trump and Putin are evil dictators” Really? I presume that you are aware that they were both democratically elected. This may be unpalatable to you but none the less it is a fact. What do you propose in terms of elections which return people you don’t happen to like? A coup perhaps, like the one that is currently going on led by the US deep state and media and – I imagine – supported by people like you.

                  From a realistic as opposed to a moral/ideological geopolitical perspective the pertinent question is not who is purer and righteous in the sight of God or more likely their own estimation, but who is the greater threat to global peace and stability. And as Chomsky has never hesitated to point out Gallup Polls and Pew Surveys have indicated that overwhelming the world in general views the US as the greatest threat to world peace and stability. But hey, don’t take my word for it, check in out yourself.

                  Geopolitics is not a morality play. It is about nations who have neither permanent friends of allies but only permanent interests, in pursuit of those interests. The rest is emotionalist, sentimental bullshit.

                    • Carrie says

                      No. It doesn’t. Most of them just get rich. Some of them also get knighthoods or OBEs or some other honour they don’t deserve.

                    • In your statement you are the prosecutor who levels the charge. You are the Judge who passes the death sentence. And you are the executioner killing in cold blood. I am only glad you have no power, you would be a terrible dictator.

        • Helen says

          So the state funded RT ‘raises concerns’ but not the state owned Channel 4 news? Your blindness as to your own prejudice reduce the validity of your comments significantly. That aside, of course not all the children presented as victims of SAA bombings are faked – and I doubt Eva Bartlett has stated that. Aerial bombing cause civilian casualties. The Western deception is that the SAA are intending these casualties whilst the ‘collateral damage’ of our bombs are of course not so.
          It is also true that the West has spent billions on propaganda – including going to the extreme of producing fake Al Qaeda videos (see Bell Pottinger scandal). It is a fact that the ‘White Helmets’ were set up by a former British military intelligence officer and many of their members have been photographed whilst on active military duty for Islamic terror groups.
          I feel sorry for the people who are suffering because people like you fall for the lies of the US and her allies that have lead us into a series of disastrous middle eastern wars with incalculable loss of life.

        • Deano says

          You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Stick to writing your third rate children’s books. If Either Eva or Vanessa Beeley had you one to one on a factual basis they would DESTROY YOU. they have been to Syria, they have reported on the truth, based on facts, unlike you. Where do your facts come from? Corrupt Western media, no doubt. Typical out of touch Australian reading and believing your corrupt ABC and heinous Australian Guardian.

        • Brutally Remastered says

          To automatically assume that everything, every reporter etc on RT is compromised is facile. In fact, one American lawyer and media analyst has stated that he has never, ever been asked what he was going to say when going live on same nor ever been given “guidelines” nor a talk about content.
          After the evidence piling up against nefarious MSM and the testimony of the, now dead, Dr UdoUlfkotte, I think I will risk my online integrity and trust the independents above those large organisations that have manifest continued, cynical bias.
          I see that a couple of smarmy, well-heeled “film makers” are going to the Oscars for their work on the White Helmets in Syria; I trust they will recieve all due approval from that august crowd…

  30. Pingback: America's News Is Heavily Censored

  31. Nicholas A. Earth says

    Pleased to come along your way. Well done!
    Please stick to it. We are many and the word goes around.
    Will shall follow and judge.
    Injustice anywhere, is a threat to justice everywhere. Just JUSTICE.
    Thanks for your hospitality.

  32. Sandy Robertson says

    So delighted to find you. I constantly call for civil discourse on Guardian comments, yet get moderated for nothing while real filth is allowed if it’s about someone they hate like Trump. They never write about Hillary Clinton allegations about Haiti or Huma Abedin or Clinton Foundation in an investigative manner, just blabber saying only misogynists don’t like her. I’m not blind to Trump’s manifest flaws, nor Brexit’s, but why has the paper become a one-sided manifesto echo chamber for the Islington elite media club. I wrote that articles that are just promos for the authors own books or shows are not what the paper ought to be doing and got modded on two occasions. When I reposted mentioning the censorship I was put on pre moderation for weeks, in spite of the fact that after I contacted them they had to agree the original post had nothing wrong with it and eventually reinstated it; they kept me on pre mod until just now. It’s very sad what the paper has become. They’re failing financially because of the way it’s run and have the cheek to ask for donations!

  33. Dear Off Guardian, I am so glad I found you. The New Guardian is such a disappointment. What on earth happened to it? I learned more from the comments than I did from the news stories. I knew somehow that the wounded
    Fans must be lurking somewhere! Kudos to you for starting this.

    • remaster says

      Second that! The comments sections are almost always more interesting and a greater source of inspiration for reference than that to which they refer. A most interesting time to be alive in the West, unfortunately, a most tragic in other parts…

  34. I found you by a posting on Facebook regarding an alternative account of what is happening in Eastern Aleppo, information I have seen elsewhere without so much detail. It has become impossible to trust any media. Even in Canada, our once good CBC has been shredded of it’s trustworthiness. My “news” all comes from alternative media. There is, however, so much of that which is definitively biased, to say the least. I have lived life without needing, or wanting dogmatic opinions or beliefs. This era of government intrusion and deprivation of dissent is both troubling and something I could not have predicted in my younger years.

    I will be interested in your articles, continuing the approach I learned young – of having no obligation to believe anything as unchanging truth or necessary fact. What my 72 years of life have taught me is that everyone experiences, thinks/feels, conceptualizes somewhat different to the same given situation. “Objectivity”, is a worthy goal, an urgently needed question as much as subjectivity will always interfere. I acknowledge my predispositions as a life-long non-conformist to authoritarian dictates, a believer in the real possibility of Justice in all areas and in alternative resolutions to conflict other than organized mass murder. I am a pacifist and never a ‘passiviiist’.

    Thank you.

  35. Wiremu says

    Hi there.
    Just found your site via James Corbett and very pleased to know of it’s existence. I have been banned from all Cif for many months after making an historical comparison/allusion to the content of a slippery little J Freedland article: very telling in the Voltaire sense.
    Am quite sickened by what is going on there and in/on other outlets as free speech and democratic principles are being eroded particularly concerning BDS, Palestine, Syria and all things Russian Federation.

    Thanks
    ciao4now

  36. Without trying to sound paranoid, please be careful, as we both know that you’re offending some very powerful and vindictive people who have no problem resorting to violence to solve what they perceive to be as troublesome.

    And please get up a donation button so some of us can help this very worthy cause that way.

  37. Pingback: about « Musings of a Penpusher

  38. Tony Reynolds says

    It may be useful to have a summary of the Tories’ record in office:

    They have doubled the national debt to £1.5 trillion, increased the NHS deficit to £2 billion, ensured the richest 1% now own as much as the 55% poorest, increased house prices, enriched nursing and other agencies, cancelled the bank levy, cut corporation tax cut to 45%, condoned tax evasion by multinationals, tolerated tax havens, boosted the lobbying industry, violated international safety regulations by flying nuclear materials between the UK and US, invited China to build a nuclear reactor in Essex, sold arms to dictatorships and increased the number of refugees, abolished workers’ rights, ruined homes and businesses by neglecting flood defences in favour of renewing Trident and bombing Syria, given 83% of a £300 million two-year fund to Tory-run councils, privatised and permitted inhuman immigration centres, failed to reduce pollution, abolished subsidies for green energy projects, left 18 million people with inadequate housing, 12 million people so poor they have no social life, 5.5 million people in debt, 1.85 million people unemployed (3/4 million young people 16-24), 1.7 million OAPs in poverty, 2.5 million children in damp homes and 1.5 million without proper food, failed to support the steel industry, abolished students’ grants and trebled their fees, cut social services for old and infirm people, increased the cost of nursery places by 33% per cent, reduced the number of child care and Sure Start centres, introduced diabolical supermarket “training” schemes FOR NO PAY, condoned unjust zero hours contracts, tolerated an inexcusable shortage of apprenticeships, failed to improve treatment for mental illness, compelled 343 libraries to close and 8000 staff to lose their jobs, increased VAT to 20%, cancelled legal aid for the poor, deceived the public about tax credit cuts, alienated Moslems, deprived workers of their rights, jeopardised education with inefficient, profit-making academies, failed to condemn the Saudi government for unjust executions, reduced allowances to opposition parties, virtually silenced the House of Lords, compelled doctors, nurses and teachers to go on strike and plan to introduce 6 million higher National Insurance payments of £450 per annum and, worst of all, prompted a UN investigation into disabled people’s suicides – and almost certainly the deaths of evicted children. Even Cameron’s mother (who lost the job she loved) and aunt signed a petition against his cuts to social services.

    Hamlet’s wise remark that “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark” certainly applies to the United Kingdom where this Government is of the rich, by the rich and for the rich – with the top jobs in the cabinet held by more than a dozen millionaires and future heirs of family empires which receive a larger sum in donations than all the other political parties put together – in return for subsidies, directorships, sinecures, peerages, honorary degrees, membership of illustrious clubs and societies, beneficial changes to the laws – and hell knows what else… Cameron and Osborne visit Rupert Murdoch regularly to receive his latest instructions. They also give wealthy landowners an annual subsidy of £3.5 billion to keep their land off the market and increase the cost of property for the rest of us while many people are living in atrocious conditions because house building has been deliberately neglected:

    http://www.newstatesman.com/life-and-society/2011/03/million-acres-land-ownership

    • Monkeybiz says

      Actually Tony, the NHS debt is closer to £18Bn in terms of the gap between what is needed and what is being provided, this is despite a 13% reduction in costs by the NHS and the Tory fairy dust “£10Bn (actually £7.8 and after various accounting tricks really only around £3.2) of new money”. Savings of £22Bn are expected, so plus the magic “£8bn (or £10bn according to May’s latest claim) there is close to a £30bn gap between what government provides to the NHS and what is needed. Don’t give them any wriggle room. They create quite enough of their own.

  39. Rob says

    Just brilliant , pse pse pse keep going esp now as we need all the help and BALANCE we can get to offset the establishment agenda.
    Thanks and soon as you get the donation sys in place I am happy to pay , lets run the rag Graun out of town

  40. Jesse Morgan says

    whoops! I found the editor apologies, still can’t fund out about funding… Jesse

  41. Jesse Morgan says

    Hello,

    Looks like and interesting site. I wonder:

    Where is your funding coming from? Who is the editor?

    Cheers

    Jesse

    • We were asked about our funding yesterday, on this page. But I’ll say it again. Currently we have NO funding whatsoever, from anyone.

      • Griselda Mussett says

        Get a system in place for us and then we can support you
        g

      • Goth Ham says

        If you have no funding….who covers your website expenses?

        Cheers.

    • OffG Editor says

      Thanks for the enquiry. We don’t currently have a donation system in place, and all our funding has come from our own pockets. We have discussed opening it up for reader financial contributions, and may well be doing so soon – especially as we are planning to move to our own dedicated webspace which will increase our costs fairly substantially.

      • pavlovscat7 says

        Are we in the ctrl-shift-delete bin of the internet?

  42. Who wants to know? says

    How cute, another website that condones the demonization of ordinary Americans and calling them puppets ^_^

  43. EnglishBob says

    I have just been pre moded, after a whole bunch of silly deletions, for complaining about ridiculous moderation on an article about – get this – cif and moderation!

    My personal favorite deletion was a post with a link to an old guardian article where they are trying to justify the actions of their parent company putting the money from the sale of AutoTrader offshore and avoiding taxes.
    Even their own articles about past actions need to disappear down the memory hole.

    I guess I should of seen that coming – they were after all pumping the Panama Papers stuff!

    • That’s how it usually goes — you write a perfectly reasonable post, it gets deleted. You get upset, but you write a few more, those get deleted too, then you get really pissed and start asking why you’re being censored. Which they then use as an excuse to put you on pre-mod (with “using it as an excuse” being used figuratively, you never get any explanation why), and pretty much the only way out of pre-mod is the eventual and, if you keep posting, inevitable outright ban.

  44. Monkeybiz says

    Today the Groan is shut down for comments on almost everything. Yet, when I visit the website I keep getting ads asking me if I’m an ex-pat and do I want to save 45% on my pension by (presumably) moving it offshore? I’d like to point out the irony of this on the Groan’s own pages, but alas, I cannot find a trhead to comment on that has anything vaguely linked to money. I can’t think why!

  45. Cthulhus_Evil_twin says

    I have a question regarding pre-moderation on the Guardian. Do you receive any form of warning from the moderators that you are being pre-moderated or is it a behind the scenes/automated script that they employ if your usename is on their blacklist?

    • EnglishBob says

      No warning is given, but from my experience you can get a sense of a build up of excessive moderation and outright deletions.

    • There’s no warning given. And if you want an explanation you need to be persistent. Your first and second emails are likely to be ignored, but your third may be answered.

    • No warning, you just get the “Your comments are currently being pre-moderated” note on top of the comment box.

      There is no warning when you get banned either, something that finally happened to me today. Which might or might not have something to do with the fact that yesterday I finally sent an e-mail to the moderation team inquiring about why my comments were being blocked (after having been on pre-mod for almost an year and being heavily moded for a few months prior to that) and that I have been posting quite a lot in the threads about comments last week and this week (and having at least third of my posts blocked). So today after a couple more comments, they disabled my account.

      It has been truly disturbing to watch this unfold. One can read a lot about historic examples of totalitarian systems establishing themselves only gradually and almost imperceptibly, but observing that creep in real time is still kind of scary.

    • One more thing since you mentioned scripts — I have developed a strong suspicion over time that there are certain keywords that are automatically detected and the posts containing them blocked, even if there is absolutely nothing offensive about the posts themselves. There is no way to verify that, but experience has shown that posts containing certain phrases are always blocked, and I’ve tired to test that by using them in completely innocuous contexts, in which even they should not see anything wrong with them.

  46. Monkeybiz says

    I’m highly amused at how the number of articles that are open for comment on the Guardian is shrinking by the week. No comments allowed on the Panama papers, no comments of the EU, not on anything of substance (interesting the EU leaflet article was opened for comments “by mistake” and closed after 11 comments. Yet to look at the Opinion pages, but no doubt comment will be free for the supporters of the status quo, but not for the supporters of Bernie or JC (though they managed to get a critique of JC in for refusing to answer questions about DC’s tax affairs with mandatory picture of JC in cycling helmet). Quote from Saunders: “‘They are scared to death. They get scared to death of the idea that young people are actually getting involved in the political process and want real change. That working class people are saying, “You know what, we need to end establishment politics and economics, and move in a different direction.” That is their nightmare.”

    Pretty standard for a corporate media.

    Even the piece on the true situation in Greece by ex-Ch4 editor Paul Mason who lambasts the media for being The Establishment, and “knowing what’s going on” (well, we knew that , Paul!) was suprisingly not open for comments. What IS going on at the Groan?

    • Cthulhus_Evil_twin says

      I, along with several others, have just had our comments completely removed (not just moderated) from the Guardian for having the temerity to ask why most of the stories on the front page are closed to comment.

      This has gone beyond moderation now and is just plain censorship. My comment was literally to ask if the Editorial team had given a reason.

      • EnglishBob says

        Yep my experience of late also.

        They now have done a more pro Sanders article. I suspect because, as far as potential U.S. readership is concerned, they have been backing the wrong horse with Clinton.

  47. sabelmouse says

    the guardian, that i’ve been reading since the late 70s, has become a corporate mouthpiece tabloid, with a terrible comment system and unfair moderation.
    quite good for recipes though.

    • quite good for recipes though.

      Well, that’s a big part of the problem — there are still things there that are essential reading. In my case, it’s the football commentary, which is on occasions cringeworthy, but it still overall probably the best there is. So one has no choice but to keep visiting the website.

  48. Tom Cahill says

    All humankind is living in a golden age of crime. And the overwhelming majority of it is coming from the suites not the streets. But there is a great awakening underway and this website is evidence of it. Power to the people.

    Tom Cahill
    Malay, France

  49. Pingback: America’s News Is Heavily Censored - The True News

  50. Pingback: Syria: homework! | Khaki Specs

  51. AnnaZimmerman says

    What a huge relief to find you. I don’t have any stories to share about deleted comments, or death-threats from shady columnists, but I have had multiple mouth-foaming moments when reading Guardian articles in the last few years. This site is like reaching a safe-house in a land populated by stumbling zombies….except it’s even better, as the safe-house has a ready-made community of the sane and living. Have you thought of charging a small subscription fee? I’m sure you’d get takers.

    • Rocky says

      I have had my comments deleted or pre moderated by the Guardian for pointing out their one sided lies by showing actual statistics.
      I got so pissed off I opened a new account and use the name facist guardian just to stick it up em.
      That rag is a total joke and to think Snowden chose that paper to release his leaks.

      • Lucas says

        Snowden is a CIA Psyop, much like that MKultra dickhead Assange before him. Be sceptical of everything that Zionist toilet paper known as the guardian pushes.

  52. Youguyz might want to check out today’s El Nino / Polar Vortex story about the December heat in the USA. Climate CHange is not mentioned until the last graphs. And the operative word is “NOT”. As in Climate Change doesn’t have ANTYIING TO DO WITH IT, the warmer El Nino and a more intense Polar Vortex. Dallas had spring-like clouds and is now fair, high of 71, slight breeze, breathtrakingly beautiful around White Rock Lake where I saw red-tailed hawks, pelicans, skads of egrets and cormorants who ought to all be south or in deep cover. Like me. Because it is USUALLY supposed to be freezing rain, sleet, high winds, freezing or lower temps and stay the fuck indoors as was the case last year. No Climate scientist is quoted although “climate scientists caution …” that weathr variations are not the same as Climate Change bla bla bla bla. I guess James Hansen wasn’t available… cheers. love your site and am grateful for it although I confess that I am gratieful for Guardian because it is So Much Better than ANY of TRASH which inundates us over here. Hell, I recall upon dawn of the internet era how radical I thought the beeb was. Now it is like the SOuth China Morning Post is going to be,

    • The Independent is better than The Guardian. Don’t know if you can get that there but you can read it online.

      • Davide says

        The Independent is behind a paywall these days, I’m pretty sure.

      • Jeanne Wilding says

        I’m wary of the guardian which once claimed on it’s front page to have had an exclusive interview with me. I’d never met or spoken to the reporter and the article was pure tabloid gossip!

  53. JokiLoki says

    I’m glad I’ve found this site – it’s great! We need some really good quality alternate media channels in the UK, and this kind of thing is a wonderful start.

    The standards of ‘journalism’ in the UK MSM, including the Guardian (with one or two of their writers being honourable exceptions) is now so bad that it’s pretty much completely off the low end of the quality scale. I now regard, more than ever before, the MSM as little more than channels for propaganda, and find I have to question, analyse and ‘vet’ (as far as I’m able) almost everything I read, see, and hear. This is a real pain, but given that we’re clearly living in a world that is increasingly full of sham of one sort or another, healthy cynicism is a necessary tool if one wants to get at the truth of what is really going on.

    Thanks for what you’re doing here. You have some very interesting and useful content in place so far, and I hope we’ll see more soon.

  54. Properworld says

    Looks simply amazing, so professional one suspects it’s infiltrated. Not that it really matters of course, it’s the message, not the messengers that are of import. Plenty of excellent messages here, further information and links. Whilst it’s not exclusively left-wing, but encompassing a range of independant free- thinking, I feel the UK column may be a site that would interest many of your readers, and could be worth adding to your links section perhaps. Many thanks, I will return, and recommend you to other too,

  55. Great site but are you ok discussing the Guardian’s perverse angle on gender-related issues? With their lauding of hateful hacks like Jessica Valenti and Charlotte Proudman and their disgraceful handling of the Tim Hunt issue? Or is feminism off limits?

  56. Barbacana says

    I posted a link to off-guardian.org on CiF … and the Guardian’s moderators not only deleted the comment, but placed me on “pre-moderation” within a couple of minutes.

    More people need to find out about this site. There are other ways of getting the word out, let’s use them.

    • reinertorheit says

      The Grauniadista CiF mods are on a three-line whip now – nothing in praise of Jeremy Corbyn, and a blackout on comments about Russia. Sites which blow the whistle on this kind of neocon trash journalism – like this one – are grounds for immediate censorship. The laughable “Readers Editor” (ie he edits the readers), Chris Hitman Elliott, – a wannabe journalist turned Stasi – spends his time making up stories about a “Kremlinbot” infestation, whilst simultaneously practicing a kind of ‘journalism’ last seen in Izvestia in 1976.

    • giri says

      I’ve been all but banned from CiF by challenging their sexist and divisive lies, and regard this as a very pertinent question, and one that I hope Off-Guardian is good enough to reply to. Otherwise this might become just another CiF “no dissent” zone.

      BTW even though I’m not a Corbyn supported I’ve found the Guardian’s attitude to him completely baffling.

  57. Barbacana says

    Question: How is off-guardian.org funded? Who pays for the website, bandwidth, …?

    • Davide says

      It’s a WordPress blog, which I’m fairly certain is free, although obviously a domain name costs money.

    • Davide is correct, the blog itself (and bandwidth) is a free wordpress blog. The domain name was purchased jointly by the three co-founders: Vaska, Systematic and Catte. We receive no “funding” of any kind.

        • Vaska, I know, is a Russian spy living in Canada somewhere. Nobody knows where she was born or even if she was, so secret is her real identity.

          As for Systematic, his or her background is surely as dodgy as Catte’s, and judging by the wry wit of the latter, he or she (as well as both he and she, i.e., both Systematic and Catte), but probably ‘she,’ that is to say, Catte, is surely a former KGB, now FSB agent, and if he or she isn’t, his or her cleverness nevertheless has “Russian” — or at the very least, “Syrian,” possibly also “Iranian” — written all over it. One thing she definitely isn’t, because everybody knows Marxists are humorless drones, is a Marxist. That’s just what you get from people who are deeply superficial.

          And yes, t’s true, at least in a technical sense: Offguardian receives no funding whatsoever. It doesn’t need it. Being as it is a personal and conjoint undertaking of both Vladimir “Pale Moth” Putin and Bashar “duck” al-Assad.

          Anymore questions?

          • Fearless Leader has warned you about careless japes, Genosse! Soon for you it is Siber…. I mean… Putney! Over and outsky

  58. Just found this site via CiF – the Graun mods were obviously on a teabreak! I still pop by there under another non-de-plume occasionally to throw the trolls some crumbs for the sheer hell of it, but had like so many, noticed the post-Snowden freefalling decline in quality. Since Corbyn took leadship at Labour even the facade of impartiality seems to have dropped to be replaced by rabid spittle-flecked invective I usually associate with extreme right-wingers (a recent Nick Cohen hate piece on Corbyn springs to mind).

    The decline in journalistic standards has been obvious awhile, but CiF is the real reason I’ve kept returning as the real thought-provoking writing was always there via the likes of Strummered, Galaxina and SteB. S to name but a few. So sad to see it turn into a troll-patrolled, over-censored, propaganda tool.

    I’m very happy it wasn’t just my tinfoil hat after all and so many others have come to the same conclusion. Some of the writing here has certainly been more illuminating than the Guardian’s journalism of late. Why they replaced the genuine sub-editors with censors is also becoming more apparent!

    I shall certainly be dropping by here regularly. More power to your keyboards!

    • reinertorheit says

      That Nicko Cohen piece this weekend was a new low in Stalinist garbage. It’s amazing that someone can earn a living churning-out a once-a-week piece of bile that’s four paragraphs long 🙁 Nick has never been a journalist, but his weekly codswallop has now become the neocon equivalent of Janet Daley in the Daily Telegraph – empty, illiterate, factless bollocks, written to goad the brainless harridans of Crouch End and Mill Hill.

    • reinertorheit says

      Your link leads to a #404, unfortunately. Any update on where to look?

        • Michael Davidson says

          Spivey and UK Column , conspiracy nutcase theorists and in UK columns case links to the BNP …no thanks …

  59. Paul Snow says

    I was very pleased to discover Off-Guardian a couple of weeks ago, and I’ve enjoyed reading the content since then.

    Like many others, I have become increasingly disappointed and disillusioned by the Guardian – a newspaper I have read almost daily since the 1970s. In particular, the deterioration in the quality of its content over the past couple of years has been very noticeable and troubling. I used to rely on the Guardian as a source of well written and reasonably unbiased news and comment, and the ability to rapidly make reader’s comments via CiF was great. Now, I find that CiF has become filled with output from trolls, and lots of tiresome tit-for-tat quibbling, rather than intelligent discussion.

    It’s also very clear now that CiF’s vaunted maxim that ‘comment is free, but facts are sacred’ is definitely not true in practice. I have recently found myself on the ‘naughty step’ of pre-moderation. I’ve lost count of the number of my comments that have disappeared down the Guardian’s memory hole. I am not abusive, and I try to make my comments reasonable, logical and well-argued generally, and on-topic, but it often seems to make no difference. Anything which the Guardian mods deem to be counter to the establishment line is off-limits. In particular, I’ve noticed that any attempt to question or even simply discuss the official narrative about the events of 9/11 will not be tolerated. So, the one major defining event of the 21st century, from which has sprung so much change, including wars with their massive numbers of dead, maimed, and displaced; the enormous profits made by some; the huge political changes across be world; the massive increases in surveillance; the suppression of civil rights; etc, etc; – no attempt at analysing the actual what, why, and how of the 9/11 event is allowed on CiF! What are they afraid of?

    • reinertorheit says

      Paul! Of course your comments were not deleted by the Graun for being abusive. That is merely a lie retailed by Chris Elliott – the so-called “Reader’s Editor”. It’s a good title for him, because his job is to edit the readers – and make sure that only Grauniad-approved neocon twaddle appears in CIF. Anything which fails to meet the neocon agenda wanted by the Guardian’s paymasters (The Carnegie Foundation, the Heritage Foundation, Chatham House, the Council On Foreign Relations) or their made-up organisations like The Calvert Report (100% funded by the Carnegie Foundation) will be booted-off… but explained as “not abiding by the Community Rules”. In other words – a pack of lies.

      Everything printed these days in the Grauniad is a lie. For example, they have a Moscow correspondent named Shaun Walker. Did you know it’s the same person as “Roland Oliphant”, the correspondent of the Daily Telegraph? So when one of them “confirms” the story of the other – it’s worthless lying, because it’s just Shaun writing both columns!

      • Is there any evidence for Walker=Oliphant theory? We’d be interested to see it if there is.

        • reinertorheit says

          Despite “Oliphant” reporting from Russia for the DT, no reporter with this name is accredited with the Russian press agencies. “Oliphant’ is frequently used as a pseudonym – especially in classical music, in which Walker professes a knowledge. Oliphant’s biography is made-up – “he” has never filed any journalism except from Russia. No-one in the expat community here in Moscow has ever met “Oliphant”, despite meeting Walker. Oliphant is always reporting from the same locations as Walker – yet mysteriously invisible.

    • Mike says

      Hi would reiterate the above as I am no longer able to add any comment to any debate ever since I quoted Madeleine albright and the western influenced deaths of over 500k children due to sanctions after a puff piece authored by Albright in the gruaniad. The most recent was a simple remark on how could a modern steel framed high rise tower block with foam fire retardant and sprayed concrete covering to the steel frame be capable of free fall onto its own foot print, not just one building or three on the same day, and yet there is a tucked away storey about some block in Dubai merrily blazing away.actually the last comment which was sent down the memory hole was some advice on how to cut the cost of a ski holiday.

    • Gordon Smith says

      I’ve just being pre-moderated for discussing 9/11 – well I assume that’s why, they still haven’t responded to my emails – all three.

      I’ve been doing it on and off for about a year, no other comments have been removed.

      Once I started adding links to evidence that contradicted the ‘official story’, my comments were removed.

      The Guardian is still MSM.

  60. Pingback: about | Kombizz's Weblog

  61. Runner77 says

    Great that this website expresses what so many of us feel about the current Guardian.

    My own epiphany in relation to the paper occurred after reading an article by Jonathan Sacks published in early September, entitled “Refugee crisis: ‘Love the stranger because you were once strangers’ calls us now”. Given that Sacks is an ex-Chief Rabbi who has in the past defended Israeli government policies in the ‘Occupied Territories’, I wondered aloud whether his sentiments applied to Palestinian refugees, and I also responded (in a civil and non confrontational way) to other commenters who claimed that any references to Palestine were irrelevant or inherently anti-Semitic.

    Anyway, it seems that the moderators agreed with these ‘other commenters’, because my comments were quickly ‘disappeared’. I also noticed that any other comment relating to Palestine – and there were many of these – came and went equally fast; and indeed, the final list of comments, remarkably, contained no reference to Palestine whatsoever! This must have required the censoring of a substantial proportion of the total comments made. After my final comment, which sarcastically congratulated the mods on ‘cleansing’ any mention of Palestine from the discussion, I was placed on pre-moderation.

    The irony of a column entitled ‘Comments is Free’ being censored, distorted, and manipulated in this way so that it conforms to a predetermined agenda is pretty striking. Whereas once Guardian reporting seemed to be genuinely concerned with accuracy and integrity, today’s Guardian is simply another mouthpiece for neoliberal propaganda.

    • Jan Brooker says

      CaptainBeefheart here. I once had about 6 [from memory] comments about Palestine/Palestinians moderated off. Been placed on pre-mod about 4 times. Never swear online, only post ad-hominem attacks on those Tory-type trolls who seem to get away with it!

      Paying £5 a month as a Guardian supporter, because I believe in paying my way BUT now get the ‘i’ every day instead of The Guardian [partly also because of time and cost constraints, not just ideology!]

      Comment is no longer Free, it seems. Especially don’t mention Kafka-esque or Orwellian on CiF in that respect!

  62. CoolKiwi says

    So glad to find this site.

    I became disillusioned with The Guardian after having a post I made in the “Comment is Free” section deleted by moderators within 10 minutes of it being posted for alleged breach of “community guidelines.” Yet my post breached none of the stated community guidelines whilst many other posts on the same thread had content whih clearly breached their own stated guidelines yet were never deleted. The only ‘problem’ I could think of with my post was that it contained certain facts which were inconvenient for the editorial/propaganda line the Guardian obviously wished to promote. That’s when I did a bit of research and realised that comment is NOT “free” on The Guardian.

    I’ll be coming here to off-guardian in future because “the facts really shoukd be sacred!”

    All the best & keep up the good work!

  63. Pingback: America’s News Is Heavily Censored | Uprootedpalestinians's Blog

    • Monkeybiz says

      Hello, my name is Richard and I’m a Guardian reader. I now know I have an illness and I’ve come here to try to learn what’s really going on. I tried Media Lens and The Real News Network, but this is the closest thing yet. How do I make a comment and can I transfer my avatar from CiF to here? Thanks. Good to know there are others who are dismayed by what has happened to the Graun of late.

      • Hi Monkeybiz. Welcome. You already have made a comment right here, so just do the same again on any story you choose. You can use any avatar you want, including anything you used on CiF.

        • Lesley says

          Similar problem to Monkeybiz – Throughout my life I have held a strong commitment to the principles of Socialism and was devastated by the ‘lost ground’ following ‘New Labours’ term in office. Several years ago , due to illness ( acute depression) and the sake of my sanity and blood pressure , I stopped following political reporting / news (etc) and I’m almost ashamed to say I have only just truly woken up to the Corbyn phenomenon – having been taken in by reporting in The Guardian and its like ‘hook, line and sinker’ ….. Sigh:-(

          As im rather an ‘old git’ ‘ I’m not perhaps as aware of alternative media sources via the Internet where one can reasonably expect to access unbiased news and/or comment written with honesty and integrity. This site seems a good place to start – any other recommendations gratefully received , as their is so much ‘crap’ out there it’s hard to sort the ‘wheat from the chaff’

  64. reinertorheit says

    A few facts for you to try, while you’re pulling on your jackboots. and pinning on your Iron Cross.

    1) A BUK (not “Buk”) is a guided missile. That means it needs a guidance system, ie radar. The only radar system in that area is owned and operated by the Ukrainian national authorities. The DNR and LNR authorities have no access to radar.

    2) If a huge international airliner, 85% full of aviation fuel for an intercontinental flight, is hit by a missile mid-air – it explodes in a huge fireball in the air. Its wreckage is scattered over hundreds of kilometres. And yet the scatter-pattern of the MH17 wreckage indicates that it hit the ground intact. No mid-air flames were seen by witnesses. Moreoever, a number of the bodies found in the wreckage were wearing oxygen masks that had dropped down when the pressure in the plane dropped. Perhaps you could tell us how these passengers managed to put on their oxygen masks in the midst of a mid-air explosion?

    3) The ATC transcripts have been withheld by Kiev Borispil airport. WHY??????? Got any answers, Bandera-boy???

    Inconvenient fact – Kiev Airport is owned and controlled by Ukrainian ultra-right oligarch loony Igor Kolomoisky (or as we are supposed to spell his name now, Ihor Kolomiiskii, or maybe Eeyore Golomuttski). Kolomoisky is the patron and paymaster of the “Azov Battalion” – the fascist paramilitary outfit which has mass-murdered thousands of innocent civilians in Donbas.

    4) The wreckage of MH17 clearly displays the distinct pattern of penetration by air-cannon fire, centred on the cockpit area of the plane. Typically this could have been fired by a Ukrainian fighter jet. Radar imagery of the area clearly show exactly such a fighter jet closing on MH17 just 2.5 minutes before MH17 plunged to the ground.

    Ты вообще безграмотно пишешь по русский.

  65. JohnB says

    Whenever I find a new site/news-source, I always thoroughly vet its background and those of its authors, before reading any of its content.

    How do I do this here? I can’t seem to find a way of identifying the authors of many articles (e.g. cjcl, can’t find more info on that author), so I can’t vet the site/authors before taking it as credible.

    Could we have author profiles – with a bit of background, and perhaps a one-line introduction to the author at top of their posts – put up on the site, and maintained for every author; helps with the sites credibility.

    • Can I politely suggest you look at the material on its own terms rather than on the supposed ‘credibility’ of those providing it? This is exactly why the mainstream media feels able to sell the crock it does – because people look at their supposed ‘credibility” and not their content. OffG wouldn’t expect anyone to take our word for anything. In fact we sincerely hope no one ever does or ever will. Check our links. Check our sources. Feel free to disagree with our stated opinions. Comments are open and never edited for anything but spam.

      • What version would that be? You’ll find more truth here about the Ukraine than at most other sources. Don’t be a fool. The truth is out there.

      • Tatzhit says

        You mean, what you learned studying the WESTERN version of events in WESTERN environment?

        What a surprise. Maybe next you can tell us about Libyan “freedom fighters” “liberating” people from the yoke of the most progressive government on the continent?

        liveleak.com/view?i=272_1439878261

      • JohnB says

        Hi BlackCatte,
        Sure, evaluating material on its own terms is a reasonable suggestion, but in the world of online media – where ‘anonymous sources’ are always to be treated as suspect (as I’m sure you’ll agree, as a journalist) – usually it’s good to know a bit of background on authors and such.

        For instance, it’s very regular, that when I research the background of authors, I find they have links to think-tanks or other discreditable institutions, promoting certain discreditable views, which gives me good reason to be wary about bias in their writing – I can then search the authors past writing, for any coverage of discreditable points of view etc..

        With this site, and the lack of background on authors, I would not be able to search out any handy history of an authors potential biases or conflicts of interest, which help me in evaluating the quality of their writing – I’d have to spend a lot more time wading through the site.

        Also, that – time – is a very important consideration when choosing what to read online, so (given how much I already read) I don’t usually take the time with sources I can’t vet.

        This is an interesting site in any case, and I will likely take a bit of time to check it out.

  66. reinertorheit says

    I understand the anger and frustration many people have voiced here – and I think that it would be worth posting an explanation of what has actually happened at The Guardian.

    In 2013, The Guardian filed some of the worst financial accounts in the newspaper’s history. The publishers were clearly in deep financial trouble, and were forced to sell-off some of their assets, simply to avoid immediately bankruptcy. The financial outlook appeared very grim.

    But ‘hope’ was around the corner… although it was a vile kind of ‘hope’ indeed.

    The Guardian was (quietly) relaunched, positioning itself primarily in the USA and Australia – whilst aiming to retain as much as possiible from its former days as a left-wing newspaper in Britain. New and mysterious ‘backers’ appeared, who were now controlling the political content of the newspaper. Alan Rusbridger was quickly removed and thrown on the rubbish-heap – the usual nonsense about wanting to develop his career (in retirement?).

    It was a very simple idea – “buy up the opposition to neoconservative American ideas – and neatralise it with a daily diet of pro-Pentagon, pro-Washington, shabby indoctrination”. Unwanted old left-wingers were quietly pushed aside. Ambitious Americans like Hadley Freeman were shoved forwards. New right-wing writers were hired, such as “Rafael Behr” (who he?). The screaming voices of the lunatic right, such as TImothy Garbage-Trash, suddenly become Leader Writers..

    Let’s just explain what “neoconservative” actually means. It means following right-wing policies and ideas under the apparently acceptable cloak of being socialists, in order to secure public support for these extreme right-wing policies. Tony Blair is the perfect example… a man who found himself in perfect accord with George Bush – a god-bothering war-mongering racist fascist psychopath with the brain of a mollusc.

    But it gets worse. The Guardian is now not really written by Guardian journalists any longer. Instead, coverage of all “sensitive” topics has been franchised out to American rightwing organisations. Now we get articles and editorial which have been “sponsored by the John D Rockefeller Foundation” (an extremist rightwing organisation), whose authorship and views chime perfectly with American hard-line exceptionalist Christian white right. Sometimes the sourcing is hidden more carefully… for example, the “Calvert Journal” – an American-funded pile of rightwing trash based in Calvert Street in London…. trailed as an “expert source” on Russia, but actually ghost-written in Washington. A few down-at-heel Russian emigres were hired as the ostensible “authors” of this crap. So now the Guardian’s Russia coverage is written by spooks in Washington under the guise of being written by “Russian opposition voices cowering from Putin in London”. I’ve met these filth – they are pathetic users who are happy to take Washington’s dollars to fund their empty-headed glamorous lifestyles in London. This comes under the heading of “New East”, headed by a new rightwing extremist at the Guardian called Maeve Sheerlaw… a cheap hack who has never been to Moscow in her life, yet was made an Overnight Expert to parrot the opinions of filth like Andrew McFaul, failed American Ambassador to Moscow.

    Then there are all the articles ‘syndicated’ from the Moscow Times – another fake newspaper funded by American rightwingers in Washington, via a chain of anonymous holding companies in the Netherlands and Scandinavia. Don’t be fooled by that “Moscow Times” title – it was one they picked on purpose, to make it sound like a serious newspaper. In fact it’s staffed by a team of cheap American journalism students, and there are no Russians working there at all. A few Russian names appear as columnists… but – surprise! – they are all Russian runaways, living in Miami or Brighton Beach, and delighted to have Washington’s cash in exchange for some bitter hatred penned during a drunken lunch-hour.

    In summary, then – The Guardian which readers remember from the 1980s and 1990s no longer exists at all. Its exterior appearance and readership has been bought for cash by American fascist organisations… but covertly, so that readers “believe” they are still reading The Guardian. Surprised? You shouldn’t be, because it’s how Tony Blair came to power in Britain – the most Tory leader Britain has ever had. And where are his ‘socialist’ allies? Peter Mandelson, a penniless journalist, is now Lord Mandelson, with a two-million pound house and a seat in the House of Lords. Socialism, my arse.

    The Guardian is now more right-wing than the Daily Telegraph. It features articles from Timmy Garbage-Trash saying how Britain should go to war against Russia, to save those jolly, plucky, Right Sector genocidal fascists in Ukraine.

    None of this has ever been mentioned in the Guardian itself, of course. You are all still clinging to this rabid pro-American sheet of garbage until the moment they actually write it on the front page. That day will never come. Yet you still think the Guardian is a ‘socialist’ newspaper.

    • THANK YOU FOR EXPLAINING how the trashification of the Guardian happened! I was wondering about that.

    • Estaunen says

      Thanks for this. Really helpful.
      like yourself, and ever since Rusbridger left for pastures new, the comments have become the as right wing as anything you’d find in Right wing newspapers. I was scratching my head wondering what is happening.

      It’s clear the neocons have reached into and strangulating what remains of the left wing. It’s painful to watch a truly great newspaper go the way of much of the media.

      so thanks for this site!

    • MartR says

      Thank you so much for posting this explanation. I had been wondering what the hell had happened to my favourite paper.

    • LES DITTRICH says

      Having been through several CiF identities over the last 2 years caused, in the large part by daring to question why CiF moderators are failing to take down anti-Russian trolling posts, I see that I am really wasting my time. They should be grateful that I am giving them a job to do, but I doubt it. This explanation chimes with much of what I have seen over the past 2 years and I’m glad I never felt obliged to pay my 16p / day. The best thing that could happen is that the Guardian goes bankrupt. Any pretence of morality went down the toilet a long time ago.

  67. Kaivey says

    I got pre moderated too. On the CIF section many right wingers write and pulverise everybody else and I was surprised as to how many of these people there were. But where was the left which paper had been made for, they seemed to be nowhere? I despaired because it seemed that the world had been taken over by the Right. Anyway, I was very good at winning my argument with the Right wingers as I would copy and paste from articles and put links in proving all my facts until I started fetting pre moderated.

    The Right go on and on about the tax, but our tax is sky high because banks are allowed to create money out of thin air and loan to our government. Governments, via independent public institutions, could create this money instead and spend it on public services greatly reducing our taxes. Instead we just pay massive amounts of interest on loans that never get paid off. Not only can the left win its arguments on the economy and economics, but on taxes too. We could seriously lower them. I would often put this video below out on CIF showing the scam of private banking until the Guardian started removing it. Why was the Guardian protecting the bankers, I thought? Something seemed badly wrong.

    12-Year Old Child Reveals One of the Best Kept Secrets in the World

    Then there was the time where under a Guardian article which was mildly critical of the City of London many right wingers were really going at it on CIF saying about all the good things that top financiers do for us. I got fed up with it and did a search around the net and found a report by a top London policeman investigator who said that the City of London was the financial crime centre of the world. I put it out on CIF but the Guardian removed it in a jiffy. I felt gutted, I couldn’t believe it, I had hit a bulls eye knocking out the right wingers but the Guardian took it down.

    So know I know why in the CIF section there are loads of obnoxious right wingers, but no one with real conviction from the left, they’ve all being pre moderated like me.

    • Kaivey says

      The link to the video did not work, so here it is again. If it still does not work, then my apologies.

      • she lost me with the Jesus comments. Otherwise, very nice for a little girl 🙂
        Some facts are true and some are not entirely true

      • Davide says

        Thank you so very much for sharing that video. I once again have faith in young people – it’s especially nice to hear a Canadian child speaking those words, considering that this little girl has grown up only knowing Stephen Harper’s Canada. This country has been stripped bare by Harper and his robber capitalist cronies, but it’s nice to see that a young person understands how we got to where we are today.

        The men don’t know, but the little girls understand.

      • She’s wrong though. Sovereign governments don’t borrow their money from banks and taxes don’t pay for government spending. Government spending creates the dollars that pay the taxes.

        The positive money types have it all wrong.

        They need to discipline their thinking with balance sheet accounting. And learn the difference between reserves and bank credit.

  68. Hello, what a relief to find this site. I have become completely unhappy with the Guardian. Particularly when they started moderating comments on the Climate Change debate – I know it’s a boring boring debate – but the blanket moderation of any questioning voice was to me a final straw. The Ukraine issue was perhaps more revolting but I am no expert on that – I could only point to some of the blatant inconsistencies in their own coverage. Anyhow, I’m going to follow you lot for a while.

    I was Wombatty – I’d like to know what the other members’ Guardian monikers were.

    • I was Brad Benson and remain so here. I don’t know how accurate the article above is in regard to the changes at the Guardian, but it sure sounds like the truth. I watched it go steadily downhill for two years. In the last six months, they started putting me on pre-moderation. Then they banned me for a two line sarcastic comment about that little Ukrainian-Nazi-Loving Punk, Sean Walker. Fuck the Guardian.

      • reinertorheit says

        I live in Moscow. 3-4 years ago I received a series of threatening phone-calls from Shaun Walker, in which he claimed he would “sort me out” if I didn’t stop criticising his articles.

        Within weeks, I started getting death threats from the Jewish Defence League. Shaun would easily have got my phone number from the Moscow Times, since they had interviewed me a few times in the past – and he used to work there.

  69. Ron says

    I too am currently under ‘pre-moderation’ at Guardio. This is for unwelcome informed comment on Syria, Ukraine, MH-17, etc and also anything to do with the genocidal Zionist regime. Dozens of my comments have just vanished, while NATObots, Zio-bots and other ranters are allowed to abuse me, while my replies are blocked.
    I’m informed by knowledgeable persons that Guardian Inc. is a property of the ‘Left Wing of the British intelligence community’. This tallies with its support for MI6 terror-enablers in Turkey and Jordan, fomenting the killing of Syrian citizens.
    The result of this bastardry is a reading public more deluded and whose prejudices get more pernicious as time passes. The resulting malaise is a pre-condition disposing the warmongers to tip Britain into war.
    False reporting on war was a crime punished at Nuremberg. Guardio employs the winner of the Orwell Prize for 2015 for Middle eEast Reportage, one Martin Chulov. No-one better deserves this ridiculous gong, than this Zio-NATOist mouthpiece.
    Good on you for Off-Guardian.

  70. Charles says

    I grant you, this is a subtle effort; better than Global Report and numerous others. A lot of thought has gone into credibility, not least the comments identities . And the concept: setting up The Guardian as a bete noir of progress and … Putin. I actually happened upon this site when searching for clues or opinions as to whether the many Putinozadoliz contributors on various international tentacles of The Guardian – or the rag itself – were just useful idiots or really in the pay of the man. Subtle, as I say, but you can’t get around the basic problem: the lines spun by the Kremlin could only be espoused by 1) an idiot, 2) someone who has spent their whole life under total information control (sadly, most Russians) or 3) you said it – a Putinbot.

    I would just say to any friendly personnel of the FSB or related organizations, I’m not technically adept, I would be easy to track down. But I’m quite harmless, I’m not organizing any underground movement. I just see this stuff online, and I can’t not react. Instead of the roubles poured into this sort of tripe, why not spend something on hospitals, schools or transport?

    • Hi Charles. You take me back to my days on CiF! The hysterical denunciation of “Putinbot’ replacing all rational discourse and applied ad hoc to anyone who presumes to take a POV not sanctioned by NATO and the New York Times. Unlike the Graun our comments really are free, so you are welcome to express any opinion you choose, but I do invite you to consider whether a more rational and fact-based analysis might not be more effective than this rather tired ad hom?

      (And don’t worry – I don’t think “tracking you down” is going to be a priority for anyone, so no need to hide under your bed tonight 🙂 )

  71. Tony Papagallo says

    bloody hell, this site is brilliant, where have you been. I was a Guardian reader since the early 1970’s when still a schoolboy, I was under the impression I was the only person in the world who had seen it turn into the filthy nest of rats it has become.
    thank you for this Site.

  72. bevin says

    Would it be possible to run comments on CIF pieces here, in real time? That would seem to me to be the most appropriate way of giving substance to Scott’s boast. It would be a real service too to the Guardian.
    I used to post long pieces of commentary on the site until I was pre-moderated, shortly after being asked by the paper to make above the line contributions.

    • Hmm..that’s actually not a bad idea.

      Maybe an open thread for responses to a significant article or blatant piece of propaganda which the Graun has prudently closed for comments?

      I also urge people to keep copies of their most “controversial” comments on CiF and to send us any that are inappropriately deleted.

      A few people have suggested they have cut back on their censorship in recent months. Not sure if that’s true as I was banned there some time ago!

      • Thanks: I’ll do that.

        I’ve been moderated (censored) several times, despite having expressed myself in a temperate manner,using cogent arguments and observations- in contrast, frankly, to several of their paid journalists,

        i’m currently being “pre-moderated”. (censored in advance).

        Your service is necessary because of the extent to which The Guardian has come to serve as the primary vehicle for debate in the UK, I suppose because their website in non-subscription based, in contrast to that of The Times and Telegraph.

        I applaud you for setting this site up.

    • Are you the bevin who used to comment at moonofalabama.org? If so … you’re missed. I’ve never seen this site before … ‘bevin site:off-guardian.org’ didn’t bring up much. I take it you’re writing above the line, here? Can I be notified of your posts?

      If you are the bevin from moonofalabama.org … I’m delighted you’re still kicking! If not … I’m sure you’re a fine person. With a name like bevin.

      • bevin says

        Just saw this comment. I did comment on the MoA site for a long time. O used to comment as ellis at The guardian, but that was years ago.

  73. I too have been censored by The Guardian when writing in about Ukraine. Even some of my emails direct to some journalists seem to have been blocked after there had been reasonable correspondence. The list of ‘neocons’ above seems about right.

  74. I hate the Guardian says

    I hate the Guardian with a passion . That is all.

  75. Nice to see the site back again. When I saw the message on the original domain, I was sure that it has been hacked. Yesterday my Guardian account got deleted for recommending offguardian–simply posting a link to someone who was asking for some alternative news sources on Ukrainian conflict. They will all try to muzzle voices who counter their propaganda. But we must never give up.

  76. An interesting project – congrats on setting it up. It’ll be interesting to see if you are as committed to free speech and pluralism as you think the Guardian should be. Most of the Guardian’s biggest critics on the left (and the right for that matter) don’t have a great record themselves on censorship (Medialens, for example, have been notorious – even among their own followers – for censoring “inconvenient” views and banning people from their message board. Examples: http://wp.me/plVmg-9T ).

    Are the five people who created this site anonymous? Nothing wrong with that, but we’ve taken a lot of flak over the years for being anonymous (as if it’s a crime or deeply suspect to not publicise one’s personal details on the web). It’ll be interesting to see if you get the same response that we inevitably get (appeals to *identity* replacing focus on our arguments – essentially an authoritarian position).

    Bear in mind also that pluralism isn’t about having the “correct” view or the sufficiently “radical” view, etc. The Guardian, for all it’s occasional heavy-handed censorship, measures up quite well in terms of *pluralism* – probably better than most other media groups, corporate or “independent”. (It’s an interesting exercise to attempt to list examples of independent media which are more pluralist than the Guardian – not just more “radical”).

  77. Pingback: Civil war in Ukraine - Page 897

  78. Good to see this site.

    I’ve had constant problems on the Guardian’s comments are feared, being moderated and even put on special measures last summer. For just saying what I think. Never abusive or discriminatory stuff, just what I understand and think.

    Some of the censorship has been appalling when criticising the blatant anti-putin/ russia slant of their narrative regarding the war in Ukraine for example.

    So good luck to your enterprise and I’ll comment when I can.

    • There is very clearly an organised gang of neocons at the Grauniad – Shaun Walker, Luke Harding, Simon Tisdall, Chris Elliott, Maeve Sheerlaw, Nick Cohen, Timmy Garton Ash – who act in concert to remove all facts and views which contradict their New World Order viewpoint.

    • LES DITTRICH says

      I just got comment disabled for chiding the mods on not taking down anti-Russian trolling. Not for any post, just for criticising them in a trolling report. 10s later – disabled. The previous day they took down my comment about the reductions in Russian disabled benefits being arguably caused by western sanctions an oil price manipulation. Nothing wrong with expressing a point of view except on Cif!

  79. Great to see a project like this come along. I look forwards to following this resource in the future.

    I have had many of my comments there censored and was eventually banned from commenting (well, put on premoderation, anyway).

    On this topic, here are three (!) articles from my blog about CiF censorship and general journalistic malpractice at The Guardian:

    Guardian Censorship: Some Comments Are Freer Than Others

    The Guardian Censors You Even If You Don’t Overtly Disagree with Them

    Alexander Mercouris – The Guardian And Putin

    Best,

    Anatoly.

    • reinertorheit says

      It’s widely believed that comments on Nick Cohen’s CiF posts are subject to “special handling” by Grauniad mods.

      • Crow Jane says

        Lol, I don’t like the idea of being `specially handled’ by the Graun Mods! From experience I’ll say this: whoever is doing that job isn’t a professionally trained Sub Editor or Web Content Editor who would have traditionally taken the role of moderating in print/online editions. The traditional role would be to remove anything truly offensive – ie, language, hate speech, spamming, trolling or commercial advertising, while allowing true debate. Yet they’ve proved to be shockingly partisan as well as allowing all sorts of trolls, racism and disability discrimination through on CiF in the last year.

        Can’t say I remember reading any of Cohen’s writing previous to the war-wongering slanderous diatribe against Corbyn, though I have been noticing all sorts of other editorial inconsistencies. They are badly under-estimating the intelligence of their readers if they expect this to go unnoticed and/or unquestioned.

        I’ve never voted Labour in my life, but I’d be tempted to if Corbyn continues to lead. They hate him so much, he really must be a threat to the cozy LibLabCon `pact’.

  80. Paolo says

    Wow, well done, you hit the nail on the head. I had been a member of CiF for 15 years until the Ukraine crisis where suddenly it was deemed that my opinions were no longer acceptable. I was put on pre moderation status last spring which meant my comments were no longer published despite the hordes of Kiev trolls being given free reign to harangue , insult, misrepresent and post garbage 24/7 (which some of them really did). I created another ID and the same thing happened a few weeks later.
    What the hell has happened to that newspaper?
    Look forward to reading as its clear the original Guardian is finished as a credible news source.

  81. smokingmushroom says

    That should have read: “My previous Cif identity”. A little less cloak and dagger!

  82. smokingmushroom says

    I have been increasingly censored by Guardian moderators and my previous identity was eventually banned for being critical of the journalists and particularly the coverage of the Ukraine situation. The speed with which the Guardian has been ‘taken over’ by this hard-faced, pro-war, Russophobic agenda is both alarming and chilling. When I asked why I had been banned I received a generic cut and paste reply stating some of their house rules. When I asked if they could provide examples of when I had transgressed those rules I received no reply at all. They did say my account had been pre-moderated on three occasions but this was untrue. It was only once for accusing Luke Hardin of being a fabulist and a fantasist.

    I didn’t know about this website until this evening. I look forward to reading through it and contributing when I can.

    Good work.

    • Theodorakis says

      Dear smokingmushroom
      Thank you very much for joining our modest effort to promote and defend free speech. Your experience echoes the stories of hundreds forum participants – and most of them were not even that lucky, to receive any feedback from the moderators.
      We believe every voice counts, especially in matters of life and death, war and peace. We are happy to have you aboard and hope to meet you soon back on the CiF threads. After all, oppression cannot last forever. It is simply suicidal for a news organization to abuse its credibility in such a manner.
      With our best regards,
      Theodorakis

  83. Pingback: Censored UK Guardian Readers Launch New Website | Scoop Feed

  84. Having had quite a few non-abusive Guardian comments disappeared, over the years, I’m intrigued by this development: my applause in advance!

    • Theodorakis says

      Dear SFS,
      As you know, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. We can only imagine how Guardian moderators (and editorial trolls trashing the threads) feel when playing God over us, the sad, unwitting crowd. Such power should be checked and we chose to do it through giving stifled voices the chance to be heard. Thanks for joining!
      Theodorakis

  85. Francis says

    I did start doing that, merely as a record that my comments weren’t abusive or off topic, but it’s time-consuming, and it’s also rather dispiriting to find one has to resort to such measures on the comment boards of a supposedly liberal paper that isn’t afraid to peddle little mementoes declaring “Je suis Charlie”.
    When it first started happening, I wondered if it might be down to the fragility of the ego of the author of the particular article I was commenting on, but it seems instead to follow particular subjects

    • Theodorakis says

      Dear Francis,
      Thank you very much for sharing your story. It seems there are a number of cyberaids employed by the Guardian’s mod system. We’ve seen comments being erased within minutes from posting – probably for mentioning the “wrong” words, or referring, as you rightly point out, to Guardian authors’ malpractice.
      This site aims to defend the right to free speech of forum participants by reporting on the abuse they have suffered so often and helping muzzled voices be heard. Looking forward to your continued contribution!
      With our best regards,
      Theodorakis

  86. Francis says

    About time. I’d copy and paste a comment I posted on CIF which predicted that people would find alternatives, but it was of course moderated

    • We should keep copies, preferably screen caps, of our comments! if you do that send them to us at OffG!

      • CaptainNemo says

        Just found your site through a link on the dreaded rt…….added you to bookmarks toolbar and look forward to following a much needed alternative to the G.

        • Hi CaptainNemo and welcome! If you sign up to follow the site you can use any avatar you choose. Using your old CiF logo is a nice idea, maybe more of us should do that.

Please note the opinions expressed in the comments do not necessarily reflect those of the editors or of OffG as a whole