Sunday, 4 July 2010

This message will be held for moderation

We are all used to going to make a post on Comment is Free (except for people like me, perhaps, who have given up on the dump except for experimental purposes) only to find that our account has been deleted for reasons of censorship and ideological control.

We are all used to going back to a thread to see how a discussion is going, only to find that our post has been deleted, again for reasons of blatant censorship and ideological control.

What sometimes causes confusion, though, is the "This message will be held for moderation" warning which appears on your little screen before you even try to do anything.

This one means that the little pound-shop terrorists who police CiF are onto you, so you had better watch your Ps and Qs or they will blind you with their dayglo yellow tabards and pretend they have powers of arrest.

What could cause such a need to silence someone before they have even spoken?

Apparently this:

Comment 1

New Labour (are they going to keep that brand, by the way?) is now the third party, occupying the place formerly used by the LibDems.

This means that nobody is interested in them, let alone their petty internal wrangles.

Both David Yelland and Andrew Rawnsley on these pages have said that the position of the third party is to be totally ignored and to have to beg for any small and slight attentions from the media.

New Labour was dead long before it was buried at the election.

Off with the old Thatcherite neo-cons and on with the new Thatcherite neo-con-libs.

The idea that changing a government changes anything which actually matters to ordinary people - ordinary hardworking families - in the real world is a mixture of quaint and tiresome.

Who are the main contenders for Dear Leader again?

The Minibars and Condoleezza Rice?

Comment 2

It is as though the discrediting of British politics had never happened. Happily, on this issue, the people are on the other side of the argument from the politicians. The electorate's interest lies in greater fairness and more equal votes. We do not have such a system now. So things must change

We are almost at the stage where the MPs' expenses scandal has become a myth. People remember bits about it and imagine that some of it was true, but it's all a bit too hazy to bother about, especially when you know that you are soon going to have to start boiling up grass collected from the roadside if you want to feed your children.

Which, of course, is exactly what the political classes knew would happen. They could afford to bide their time and knew that things would simply revert to normal if they kept schtum. Of course, they are know bullying the new body which is supposed to oversee their pilfering and profligacy, so in a few years it will be worse than before.

"So things must change."

Is that because The Guardian says so? Because the feeling is that the general mood of the public demands it? Neither of those things has brought about change before, so why should they now?

Andy Burnham has turned against reform. Jack Straw is manufacturing excuses for Labour to wriggle off its commitment. Meanwhile Labour bitterness towards the Liberal Democrats is feeding a mood of arid destructiveness towards even the good things that could come out of the coalition. If Labour is to deserve support as a party of progressive reform, it needs to listen to the leadership candidates who have been calmest and truest to the AV cause.

New Labour really hardly matters any more. They are the padding, the ballast and the make-weights now and during their thirteen year regime, they never showed themselves to be progressive reformers, so nobody is looking at them for that now.

In fact, nobody is looking at New Labour at all any more. Like the prime minister who, on leaving office, suddenly loses his or her gleaming, chauffeur-driven limousine and has to make do with a dented old Austin Allegro, New Labour has gone from the offices of state to a converted garden-shed with a leaning portaloo propped perilously to one side.

Mr Clegg originally wanted the referendum early in the parliament to capitalise on the electorate's general goodwill towards the coalition. That goodwill, and thus that reasoning, still holds good.

Perhaps, but if a week is a long time in politics, a year is at least a lifetime.

By next May, people will be waking up to the idea that we are not really "all in this together."

They will have slowly come to understand that they are being fleeced in order to make Britain a low-wage economy, able to compete for the favours of big business on the global slave-market.

They will have noticed that changing a government does not actually change anything at all, since governments simply act as the servants to global business interests.

People might even remember that it was the banks which caused the global economic meltdown and wonder why it is that they and their neighhbours and other hardworking families are being punished for it.

The penny might just finally drop.

At that point, the smiles and grins of Dave and Nick might be wearing thin and the artificial love-in we have been pretending to enjoy with our sleek, smart-suited and spun new Dear Leaders will be getting tired.

We may just think that having three Tony Blairs in one lifetime is simply too much of a good thing for anyone.

Comment 3


It might work, but you may also find that the best commentators below the line are usually pretty much personae non gratae unless they doggedly applaud and parrot the party line as declared and clumsily etched in stone by the cheerleaders and circus-barkers who occupy the positions of power at Propaganda HQ.

Anyway, The Guardian seems to be hoping that teh internetz will save its bacon by using its new APIs, which will allow other websites to publish Guardian content, as long as they also carry advertising to create a resounding kerching for the Guardian's tills.

Real world newspaper circulation will continue to decline as long as newspapers are seen to be simply the megaphones of the rich, the establishment, the state and big business.

CiF has certainly never subscribed to the belief that its readers are intelligent and able to make their own judgements, frequently in opposition to the pronouncements and idiocies of its star journalists.

It works on the basis of suppressing dissent and shouting the same things louder, assuming that this line of attack will win in the end.

Meanwhile, of course, money pours from its coffers like water from Dear Liza's holey bucket, as it hopes to attract those wandering newsless refugees camped in the derelict wasteland just beyond Mordoch's pay-wall.

Suggestions like afancdogge's above to rally the traditional Guardian readership are ignored in case they upset the dilettante droves who are the intended financial milch-cows because they will not be able to resist clicking on any flickering, insistent and colourful adverts.


Perhaps any reasonable person can see that incendiary comments like that must lead to the person making them having a muzzle strapped over their mouth, even on the pages of a newspaper which pretends to be liberal and wants to go international.

Well, that was my three strikes and you're out episode with The Guardian's Comment is Free, which they apparently try to market without any irony or sniggering in the background.

I think I'll pop back for more of their nonsense in due course.

They are obviously too stupid to learn.

PS When will Matt Seaton answer the moderation question?

Is he too scared or just too thick?


  1. Neat job there round at CiF hiding the Paul Gregg article in one blue line below pollytoynbee...

  2. Because of the character limits this post is in two parts:

    Once again Ally Fogg, the 'darling' of CiF has donned the censor's cap and joined the moderators.

    Amandla de Thomas Johnson wrote an article "Saving Granny", a tongue in cheek slightly amusing piece about trying to convert his largely Christian family to Islam.

    AllyF contributed the following post containing a bit of racist 'humour' about Jews and bacon.

    "AllyF 17 Jul 2010, 12:23PM

    "Someone could write a fantastic sitcom about Amandla's family. One's a Muslim, one's Seventh-Day Adventist, one's a Spiritual Baptist, one's Roman Catholic, one is Moravian, one's Methodist and one's a Bahá'í. If it were me, I might have to write in a Jew and an atheist for good measure.

    "Every mornng the breakfast table must be a hoot.

    "Do the dishes, love"
    "I did them yesterday."
    "But I cooked the eggs!"
    "Well I cooked the bacon."
    "BACON??? M'Shallah, you're going to hell!"
    "Nonsense, my conscience is clear, you're the one going to hell."
    "Oy vey, my brother's right you know, you are going to hell, but so is he."
    "No, infidel, you are damned to hell."
    "Says you."
    "Says you"
    "Says you"
    "Children! Children! Stop squabbling! Please behave! I love you all. But you're all going to hell except me, I tell you, me me me!!"

    It wasn't one of Ally's best but it's good to see him put his racist humour up front.

    I posted a comment in response to an earlier one of stevejones123 who wrote:

    "And let's be fair. Islam is ecologically more sound now with this global warming thing. You get a much smaller carbon footprint from stoning people than burning them at the stake."

    To which I responded:

    "Not sure that's scientifically correct. With the former you simply get the carbon released much quicker.

    "The real problem with Amandla de Thomas Johnson is that he hasn't got the courage of his own convictions.

    "Had he been a true believer he'd have buried his grandmother to her neck in the garden, shackled the rest of the infidels who make up his family and forced them to watch him stoning her to death before asking if any of them wanted to reconsider.

    "All this namby pamby leaving translations of the Koran lying around is just a cowardly excuse for not doing the right thing in the first place."

    To this Ally Fogg leaped on his high horse, blustered on about how disgraceful my post was and said he'd be reporting it to the moderators. Within minutes my post was "removed by the moderator".

    Anyone looking through the 200 plus post on the thread will find lots of similar sentiments expressed, about which Mr Fogg took no objection.

    What is more interesting is that AllyF's post saying that he would get mine moderated has disappeared without trace.

    So ashamed AllyF must have been with embracing censorship so easily that with the help of the mods he's deleted the historical record.

  3. AllyF then responded with this non sequitur:

    "Licentialiquendi (that's me)

    "Suggesting that "good" Muslims and Jews think that eating bacon is a sin is hardly controversial.

    "Suggesting that "good" Muslims would want to bury non-Muslims up to their necks and stone them to death is bigoted hate-speech.

    "The fact that you cannot tell the difference is rather telling."

    So now not only is Mr Fogg appointing himself censor in chief, but he's also deciding who is a "good muslim" and a "good Jew".

    My response - also removed by the moderator was:


    "Eating pork for some muslims is a mortal sin whereas stoning female adulterers is a religious requirement.

    "Amandla doesn't tell us whether he agrees with either.

    "The fact that you choose to ignore this however is even more telling.

    "Enjoy your lunch whatever it is but please don't choke on it."

    At this stage that other self-confessed censor BeautifulBurnout weighed in with:

    "And burning little girls because they are witches is a religious requirement for some Christians."

    MrsB has a bee in her bonnet about this, having trotted it out on CiF on a number of occasions in her defence of muslim barbaric practices like stoning and female genital mutilation. She is of course talking absolute nonsense and I responded:

    "No it isn't and you won't find a single reference anywhere for that grotesque statement.

    "Whereas just last week we had the Iranian government backing down from international pressure to stop a stoning it had authorised.

    "And what happend to Buddhism, the religion of peace?"

    MrsB is a Buddhist and earlier in the thread had lectured Amandla de Thomas Johnson thus:

    "I never, for one moment, would have the sheer bloody arrogance to assume that, just because I have found a spiritual path that is right for me, that they are fundamentally wrong in their beliefs and will go to hell for it."

    Notwithstanding the fact that the Buddhist concept of hell is quite different to the Muslim / Christian versions, MrsB's response is rather indictative of someone who thinks she can boast about her alcohol consumption and still adhere to a code of conduct that forbids it.

    So in conclusion, and sorry about the convoluted post, we have once again AllyF joining MrsB in censoring posts to which they object.

  4. Posted on WDYWTTA

    I'd like you to invite Ally Fogg to write ATL about the way he can get the mods to censor posts and then get his own posts asking them to do this removed completely from CiF's records. He might also be asked to write a defence of his racist comments about Jews he posted on the Amandla de Thomas Johnson article.

    Anyone with nothing else to do can read the posts on CiFModeration Watch here or The Untrusted here.

  5. Afternoon all

    Firstly, may I apologise for confusing you with CiFWatch - of course this is not the same place and I see that now (aside from the colour scheme).

    Secondly, can I direct you to the conversation on the UT in relation to what happened on the Johnson thread yesterday - I had a comment of my own, saying I wasn't criticising the author for the male equivalent of wearing a Burqa, but for being a Berk - zapped out of existance. (Incidentally, I don't think anyone was out to get me... more on that later).

    I was then accused of reporting Bitey to the moderators. I explained to him in laborious detail that I had been out since the last post and it wasn't me, in which case he decided it must have been AllyF. He conceded that it couldn't have been me, although I am still awaiting the apology.

    The fact is, Bitey's post was sufficiently polemical for the moderators to be able to make up their own minds without anyone else needing to be responsible for reporting anything at all.

    It is sad to think that someone is unable to put deletions down to the moderations and must seek someone else to blame all the time. It is turning into a bit of a persecution complex imo.

  6. BeautifulBurnout wrote:

    "I was then accused of reporting Bitey to the moderators. I explained to him in laborious detail that I had been out since the last post and it wasn't me, in which case he decided it must have been AllyF. He conceded that it couldn't have been me, although I am still awaiting the apology."

    What I posted on CiF was a question:

    "MrsB, was it you or AllyF that sought the deletion of this comment from the CiF record? Or was it a piece of joint censorship?"

    So you weren't accused of anything, although like AllyF you have in the past admitted to this kind of petty censorship.

    You continue:

    "It is sad to think that someone is unable to put deletions down to the moderations and must seek someone else to blame all the time. It is turning into a bit of a persecution complex imo."

    Firstly over the years I've posted on CiF I've have very few posts deleted, compared to the number I've posted.

    Secondly there were over 400 largely derogatory comments about me posted on The Untrusted website over the course of nine months before I posted my first, and you talk about persecution.

  7. This article on CiF by Ally Fogg has been a long time coming.

    "Do Not Jail the Troll" - 'However vile Colm Coss's online behaviour may have been, sending him to prison sets a dangerous precedent.'

    AllyF writes:

    "Nor is this about censorship or moderation. Nobody but the most extreme libertarian would object when Facebook or any other site remove such messages and ban the offenders. That is right and proper, and the role of the site providers. This is specifically about the point at which the criminal justice system steps in to police online speech."

    Actually it is about censorship and moderation, and I can see why you wouldn't want to portray it as such. But from time to time even Ally Fogg has resorted to this kind of attack on free speech on CiF in order to protect his own reputation.

    So while he is right to protest strongly about the use of a jail sentence in this case, he cannot but avoid the charge that he has used very similar methods himself when it suited him and reported posters to the moderators in the full knowledge that they would be banned.

    For full details see here on CiF Moderation Watch

    Here in time, with the agreement of site owner you'll be able to read about other CiF regulars who have felt nothing wrong with prompting its moderators to ban contributors to this forum, not for posting anything obscene, or libellous, or anything of the kind that resulted, quite wrongly in my opinion, in Colm Cross getting a jail sentence, but for merely posting what they don't want others to read.

    These include such well known names, some of whom have posted here, as JayReilly, BeautifulBurnout, thaumaturge, MontanaWildhack, turminderxuss, RapidEddie, Gogolo, sheffpixie, shazthewombat, NormanHadley, backtothepoint, heyhabib, PhilippaB, LaRitournelle.

    Along with Ally Fogg, each one has in the past knowingly taken action that they knew would result in the banning of one or more posters.

  8. Not long ago, kizbot, to her credit pointed out that those posters who deliberately exposed previous CiF regulars who were now posting under new names, were engaging in nothing other than petty censorship.

    She was quite right and as I promised in my post above, here are some examples, starting with NormanHadley writing on CiF on 27 October 2010 9:57AM, on an article entitled of all things:

    A panel debate on web moderation

    Morning bitethehand/auxesis/Job/yanquapin

    I hope you are keeping well out East but can I repeat my entreaty from earlier this year that you never speak to me? Thanks.

    (If anyone else, especially Angie, wants to come back on that story, I'd be very interested, though)

    And of course by identifying Yanquapin as bitethehand, he knew this would result in me being banned yet again.

    The irony of calling for someone to be banned on a thread about CiF moderation policy, I guess was just beyond poor Norman.

  9. "AllyF 17 Jul 2010, 12:23PM. on the thread following his own CiF article "Do not jail the troll".

    "Phimai - I've never said that people who post overtly racist and prejudiced comments on Facebook or Cif shouldn't have those posts deleted. I tend not to report them though, because I prefer to let us all be judged on our own utterances."

    "But I have never once called for anyone to be banned because, apart from anything else, it doesn't work. However annoying they may be, the same characters just keep reappearing with different names."

    You reported me posting as Licentialiquendi on the Amandla de Thomas Johnson article "Saving Granny", which resulted in me being banned the same day, after which I began posting as Brooklynowes, which I did for three months until some of your fellow censors objected to their words of wisdom being critically appraised and resorted to the moderators.

    You'll find the account earlier on this thread.

  10. PaulBJ posting on CiF:

    No, they're saved to disk and sent to

    Nice one !

    Aren't you the one PaulBJ, about whom one of your UT 'friends' wrote:

    You're not proud, Paul. We all know that. You're humble and subservient, and very very greedy for approval. It's sad to see. You need to get some self-respect. As for wiping the floor with my white arse, don't be silly. You're playing up to racial stereotypes there.
    You're dont exist as far as i'm concerned. Suits me. Fuck off back to waddya. As I said earlier, you'll be more at home there. Maybe hermione can take you on as her houseboy.

    You must be the same PaulBJ because I seem to remember mentioning you in dispatches thus:

    MrsBootstraps abuses her host Montana Wildhack, Montana responds with abuse to MrsB, scherfig abuses everyone and gets abuse from HankScorpio who not to be outdone abuses everyone. Monkeyfish responds and abuses MrsB and Montana. Paul abuses everyone. Andy gets the ultimate in abuse from MrsB by being likened to everyone's enemy, me, for whom he has a pathological hatred and Fariha is accused of being my illigitimate child.

    And didn't you post the following about some of your best friends Paul?

    Bru actually went for Jen,MillyMoll, Turminder and maybe others today for doing nothing more than questioning her.She's a vicious albeit stupid bitch and Kiz is just as bad and it's totally beyond my comprehension why those two almost always get away with it.

    I appreciate many people here think there are so many more important things to worry about.But in my way of thinking there are the fundamental issues of fairness,equality and freedom of speech to be considered here.And the bottom line is that at the moment the fact that Kiz and Bru repeatedly get away with using waddya to pursue their own vendettas is something i feel should be taken more seriously than it is.

    And didn't one of your best friends, wasn't it scherfig, say of you:

    On a more specific note, I'll say to paulbj that your offensive assault on practically everybody here was at least honest and heartfelt and passionate (at the time). I'm not singling you out - it's just a recent example, not the first, but not to be swept under the carpet either. And I would still call you a paddy nigger (but not in a bad way). Although I wouldn't think of calling habib a Paki, or Turminder a half-caste Jock. Why is that, I wonder? What is the difference? Although if I wanted to say these things here, why shouldn't I? These views exist in the real world so why should they not be expressed here? It's surely a subject for discussion with all the animosity and insults and personal offence that that might entail with such a conversation on this forum (a bit like the real world but perhaps with more honesty!). UT - freedom of speech, no moderation, not Cif.

    Disgraceful racist accusation but only repeated here to defend the importance of the historical record.

    So would you like to remind us all about those "fundamental issues of fairness,equality and freedom of speech?"

  11. So rapideddie has decided to join the ranks of the censors with this post on WDYWTTA.

    Bitey, let me help you not to get banned.

    (a) Change/mask your IP. Move to a different province in China/Thailand/Sidcup. Pretend to be a visiting Asian Professor of Linguistics & Gender Studies who just happened upon the site while researching his Complete & Utter Misogynist Bastards study. Write in broken English and say things like "Your David Beckham is very handsome man who wear skirts."

    (b) Don't in your first post immediately quote a post from an established poster from 2 years previously. There is only one Bitey Megadatabase Of Imagined CiF Slights, Atrocities And Damning Self-Indictments.

    (c) Don't hump the leg of the first feminist ATL contributor you see. A new poster who immediately wades in with "Madame's glorious prose flows like the richest breast milk and I am pleased to suckle at its enlightening teat" might as well have "The Bitemeister Is Back" as their avatar picture.

    It is The Guardian that tells us each day that Comment is free.... but facts are sacred and presents itself to the world as the UK's prime bastion of freedom of speech and democracy.

    So every time those who manage CiF ban me for breaking one of it's petty rules but allows any number of foul mouthed, racists, sexist and homophobic posters to remain, as many of you regularly point out, it does itself far more damage in the eyes of those who are responsible for maintaining C. P. Scott's principle.

    And while it remains possible to adopt a new identity and I have the inclination to continue to post, that's exactly what I'll do.

    Of course it would help if those self-appointed censors on CiF didn't do their job with such enthusiasm as my belief is that the moderators really aren't that bothered with me breaking the rules, until one of you demands that they take action. Indeed it's quite clear that some of them quite appreciate my contributions.

    But I can live the inconvenience and not having my name above my posts. You know who I am most, but not all of the time and I make it easy for you. And I'll continue to remind you of your past indiscretions, as and when you least want it and always accompanied by your own words.

    And of course what is really eating RapidEddie is the way I pulled him up for racist stereotyping recently.

  12. englishhermit joins the moderators' best friends:


    It wasn't AllyF who reported you to the mods, it was me and I did it on the grounds of trolling because you made an identical post in the other place this morning. It seems as though the mods agreed with me that it was of malicious intent.

    To which I responded:

    If you'd read my post more carefully you'd have understood that I wasn't accusing Ally Fogg of reporting me to the moderators on this occasion, but rather asking him to answer a simple question about the ethics of journalism in a western democracy. And his answer makes it quite clear that he is quite ignorant even of the National Union of Journalists' Code of Conduct:

    A journalist shall at all times defend the principle of the freedom of the Press and other media in relation to the collection of information and the expression of comment and criticism. He/she shall strive to eliminate distortion, news suppression and censorship.

    Now you may consider my comment as trolling, but I doubt many would agree with you. But what they'd find difficult to stomach is the way you all too readily resort to censorship.

  13. kizbot

    Bitey is his own worst enemy.. But I've never reported him on here.

    Quite right she hasn't

  14. Here's Backtothepoint / Spike, the moderator's friend, sulking after getting the worst of his on-going defence of the arch capitalist head of the IMF Dominique Strauss-Kahn, on bail in New York for attempted rape, sexual assault and false imprisonment of a Black African, hotel chamber maid.


    What is it with this French bourgeois - that you (BeautifulBurnout) and BTTP, would stake both your reputations for him and trash that of a poor African cleaner?

    Now that's a lie and personal abuse, and very much against community standards, isn't it, bitethehand?

    In your obsessive need to stalk and dissemble, will you never understand that fabricated malicious smears aren't acceptable? Or do you simply enjoy being banned and sneaking back?

    With communists like BTTP supporting the workers of the world, capitalism must be safe for some time yet.

  15. Spike on What Do You Want to Talk About

    Actually, I do report Bracken's posts for abuse when he smears me. There's not a lot else I can do since it's pointless descending to his level, but the sort of things he says about me could get me put on a file.

    And that is probably the closest thing Peter Bracken and I have in common - that Spike reports us to the moderators, in the full knowledge that it will result in a banning for us, rather than engage in argument and debate. There isn't a poster on CiF who couldn't detect a smear if they tried, but most except Spike treat it as part of the cut and thrust of debate. But not cry baby Spike. Small wonder he ran away to France where presumably they have a greater appreciation of his ongoing displays of cowardice, for that is what they are.

    With his history of running to the mods, this quote of his must stick in his craw:

    What do you want to talk about?
    Spike's comment 16 March 2010 1:42PM

    Or alternatively, call it "Comment is Free Unless We Abritrarily Decide Otherwise". A little unwieldy, but more factual, you'll admit.

    Maybe it should be updated now in the light of your more recent postings Spike to read:

    "Comment is Free Unless We Abritrarily Decide Otherwise or Spike has come whining to us telling his tales".

  16. I've posted under various aliases such a AdAstram and Etoiles.

    In my experience the way to get banned from CiF is straightforward: be on the right and in the right.

  17. And here's the latest example from early in November 2011 of one of the censors who's helped wreck CiF. Tybo posted to another poster who protested about him playing the censor:

    I have no intention of getting into a discussion with you about this or anything else. But Bitethehand has conducted a longstanding stalking of BeautifulBurnout over years, that has involved multiple identities (as his behavior clearly breaches community guidelines and he keeps getting banned) and has extended to making threats to report her to The Law Commission and other threats to take his obsessive campaign into real life and to try to do harm to her her professionally.

    If he comes here and carries on his obsessive bullying behavior, I will report him to the moderators whenever I see it.

    BitetheHands attempted cyberbullying might seem OK to you but, then what you think about it is really not something that bothers me one way or the other.

    Old bean.

    The idea that by her own admission, an overweight late forties pseudo Buddhist, a second rate lawyer with an under performing teenage son who she's taken out of school and regularly uses to try to boost her own reputation on CiF, would be an attractive stalking proposition to me is rather pathetic, and really only good for a laugh. And of course it's the Bar Council that governs the conduct of barristers, so when she accused me of libelling an immigration adviser writing ATL, who incidentally made no such claim herself, quite the contrary, that to me is bringing her profession into disrepute.

    What's still irritating tybo is that I exposed his sympathy with suicide bombers, something he has in common with that other armchair terrorist backtothepoint - Spike, on the CiF "And the nominations are..." thread back in 2009.

  18. Here's TurminderXuss on CiF 2 November 2011 2:15PM

    anyone else think crimsontide99 is bitey talking to himself as XianChen?

  19. Here's tybo on 2 November 2011 2:17PM

    TX I just reported Crimsontide as Bitey to the mods. Lets hope they lance the boil quickly.

  20. RichJames joins the list of those enemies of freedom of speech who inhabit CiF's re-named WDYWTTA. What irony after I'd just posted the following quote from Vaclav Havel, whose death had just been announced:

    When a truth is not given complete freedom, freedom is not complete.

    Vaclav Havel
    5 October 1936 - 18 December 2011

  21. BeautifulBurnout introduces moderation / censorship on the Untrusted Site - thereby breaking a three year pledge by its founder members, of which she wasn't one, that it would be different to the Guardian in that crucial aspect.

    Blah blah blah

    Another load of stalky-bollocks from me, because I am so obsessed with BeautifulBurnout, and my life is so small and meaningless, that I live and breathe to write shit about her, then come on here first thing in the morning to smirk because she can't report me to any mods.

    Oh shit - I forgot she is a mod on the UT. Damn.

    (Edited by a moderator)

    I wonder if she's going to brave enough to post this announcement on WDYWTTA?

  22. From the Banner Headline on the opening Untrusted thread 15 February 2009:

    A place for Ciffers to keep things going

    Martillo could probably do a better job of this, but I thought I'd create a place for Ciffers to keep alive threads that have been cruelly cut short by the Guardian mods. Cluing each other in on what it was we've said that mods have deleted is acceptable, too.

    And from Montana Wildhack's very first post:

    I promise not to censor comments. Help me let people know that it's here, okay?

    Today, 10 April 2012, my attempt to sign on to the site was met with the following announcement:

    The site has blocked you from posting new comments.

    There has been some discussion over the past few weeks with the more principled coming out against joining the likes of CiF, and starting a banning and censorship policy but unless this is some glitch on the part of Disqus, it appears the banners and censors must have won the day.

    Doubless one of the regulars on the site - maybe even Montana herself, will contribute a rationale in due course

  23. Montana Wildhack - Friend of Censors

    I guess in time the forces of reaction overwhelm even the most revolutionary spirits. Like Rubashov, a Bolshevik old guard and 1917 revolutionary who is cast out, imprisoned, and tried for treason by the Soviet government he once helped create. The main character in Arthur Koestler's best-known work, Darkness at Noon, showed that even the most staunch and determined eventually cave in to their oppressors.

    Small wonder she's having difficulty sleeping she's joined Spike / backtothepoint and the arch bully HankScorpio in her adoption of Stalinists behaviour.

    It'll be interesting to see how many of the founder members of the Untrusted are prepared to remain silent at this action they all stood so strongly against when the site was established.

  24. And here it is - Montana WIldhack at her very best:


    Yes, you sick, stupid motherfucking arsewipe. You've been banned. You will be banned and deleted every time you try to show your useless, stalking face here. Try all the proxies and new IDs you want -- they will ALL be gone.

    You're a parasite, but I'll be goddamned if I'm going to let you feed off of this site any more.

  25. Here's afanc displaying the naivety that encourages the censors of this world:

    If I were banned from several sites for stalking and general nastiness I hope I would have enough sense to stop and think - to at least wonder if perhaps I was doing something wrong !

    Someone tell afanc that censors only target people who are right. The one's who are wrong they really treasure.

  26. Bitethehand - the real Untrusted?

    How the CiF rebels turned hypocrisy into an art form

  27. Nice Stalking Wolf in Montana here

  28. The Hounding of Ultimathule

    Ultimathule had posted on CiF from at least November 2007, from a committed feminist position. Over the years she had generated a vast amount of vicious hatred from those who opposed her views............

  29. For anyone interested in accuracy, justice and free speech, I’ve written a piece to counter the all too often accusations made about me by members of The Untrusted cabal.

    For almost three years members of The Untrusted have accused me of paedophilia both on that site and on Comment is Free. Taking the lead in these accusations have been HankScorpio and BeautifulBurnout. I have written this article to counter these accusations.

  30. I reckon you've been banned because your posts are too bloody long, mate.