30 April 2009


"Dear Jay,

Your posting rights have been rescinded. I refer you to the following passage of our community standards:

"Participants who seriously, persistently or wilfully ignore the community standards, participation guidelines or terms and conditions will have their posting privileges for all guardian.co.uk community areas withdrawn."



They let little BNP trolls fill the threads but i am banned for calling Tony Blair, a war criminal, a cunt. No warning, no email, just banned. "Comment is Free".....


  1. So sorry to hear you are banned. Why don't you come back under a new/similar moniker?

    Tony Blair's drivel has disappeared and he can't be found under contributors either.

    What makes me think he did the moderating himself?

  2. I could come back under a new name but i have posted a long time under JR and people know me as JR, perhaps i should come back under a female moniker, seems virtually no female posters ever get banned.

    And whats worse is ultima will be thrilled, that bloody lunatic has been calling for me to be banned for ages. Banned for Blair, fucking sickening.

  3. Sorry to hear this, Jay. Couldn't believe the carnage on the Blair thread - just ridiculous, and what did they expect?

  4. Shall we all protest on the 'What do you want to talk about' thread??

  5. I've just posted in the What do You Want To Talk About thread:

    "Why in the name of all that's sacred has JayReilly now been banned?

    I am stunned at the way in which good commentators have been culled over the past couple of weeks for what appear to be minor infractions - if indeed they are infractions at all - of the Mod policy.

    One of the most attractive things about CiF is the freedom to comment, bizarrely enough. We don't have to wait for the comment to be pre-modded. We don't have to rely on the sensibilities and political filters of a third person to voice our opinions. And, unlike most of the other sites, there is good debate and discussion on most topics. It is rare that a thread degenerates into name-calling.

    Which brings me to my next point:

    If he has been banned because of the Blair thread, well take a look at it and have a think about it. In the current climate, do you really believe it was a good idea to have Blair writing on here, or, more to the point, allowing comments on his piece, when out of 83 comments only 29 remain (and three of those are from staff)? What did you seriously think would happen? Were you expecting deference and respect? Maybe you ought to have learnt a lesson from the Richard Pearl thread and realised that mayhem would ensue.

    The number of sane voices in this place is diminishing fast, particularly when one considers the penchant for commissioning pieces about the BNP, which attracts every racist, white supremacist, "genetically English" nutter with a keyboard and an ISP to come on here and spout their bile.

    What sort of people do you want to encourage on CiF? Do you want intelligent debate or do you want random drive-by posters who voice their opinion and toddle off into the sunset with no engagement and no respect for the debating process?

    Like I say.... stunned."


  6. "Couldn't believe the carnage on the Blair thread - just ridiculous, and what did they expect?"

    This is what i dont understand, they knew exactly what would happen, course they did, yet still they went ahead and then started dishing out permanent bans for people's comments. I really dont understand what they are trying to do with the website at all, i dont know why they are so keen to ban regulars.

  7. Protest made no difference on the recent bannings. Why should it make any difference now? How about
    1. Mailing Cif and asking them to delete ones profile/comments. Or..
    2. Getting intentionally banned.

    Any thoughts?

  8. The thing that makes this so idiotic is that it's Blair that's got you, Jay. If I may say so (I really don't mean this callously), you've probably been dicing with death for a while, but the fact it's Blair makes a mockery of everything.

    Anyway, I'm with Scherfig. If they commission and over-protect war criminals and let little brown shirts get away with spewing their shitty little racist stuff all over CiF, then I politely retreat. Not my scene.

  9. I'm just retreating, scherfig..

  10. Jay - don't suppose you saved the post wot done it?

    Now Kiz is all steamed up!

  11. "The thing that makes this so idiotic is that it's Blair that's got you, Jay."

    Yeah its pretty upsetting to be honest, of all the things to get banned for, Tony fucking Blair.

    i didnt actually often abuse writers though, in the usual "abuse" sense of the term, i just strongly mocked and criticised their politics, should be fair game. I also didnt generally resort to abusing other posters, though i certainly had my moments. Lately i have been more critical of Guardian hypocrisy, perhaps thats it, BNP trolls are fine, but pointing at Guardian Oxbridge hypocrites isnt.

    But i would at least have hoped that considering the amount i post they could at least have sent a warning, one simple email saying if you talk about a, b and c much more we may ban you. Not to even warn is pretty damn low in my opinion, their contempt for their readers is astonishing.

  12. Is it just Jay who's been banned? There were so many deletions on that thread I fear there may have been a massacre.

    I see the thread has been closed down.

    On the plus side, I've created a widget that displays postings from here, Phil Hall, Heresy Corner, Frank Fisher, Cath Elliott and Ariane Sherine. I've called it Cif Survivors. You can see it and get the code here.

  13. And they still let that piece of white supremacist "genetically English" shit Endogame post!!!

    I'm getting bloody angry now. Seriously.

  14. Yep endogame is still going strong...

    There may be more bans from the Blair thread, wouldnt surprise, which really wouuld be mental, get the most hated man in britain to write for a left wing paper, then ban people abusing him.

  15. Thanks BB and all for support, appreciated, i knew i wasnt popular with the cif team but genuinely didnt ever envisage getting permanently banned, so is a little distressing in all honesty, i had grown quite attached to old JR...

  16. scherfig
    Have just logged on, very busy at work, haven't looked at CiF.

    Yes, 99% in agreement. This is pretty much time to throw the towel in with those snotty nosed jumped up third rate fucktards.

    Too many people I like are getting banned here. GMG don't fucking deserve my attentions any more...

  17. "And they still let that piece of white supremacist "genetically English" shit Endogame post!!!"

    The little shit has just written a lengthy comment on my "ignorance" and i cant even respond to the halfwit little racist chimp...

    On the subject of Seaton i emailed him too and he was pretty decent to be honest, he said it had nothing to do with him and that he didnt really loathe me as a poster, i asked him if there was someone senior i could talk to about it but no response yet.

  18. jay I'm speechless! Pity I missed the Blair thread the way I feelabout that grinning little shit I'd have banned alongside you! It would have been an honour.

    A journal i subscribe to has a short report section. Might send them some copy on this - its time it was out there!

  19. Bloody hell it was a feking massacre!

    Has anyone else been banned do you think?

  20. Hi annetan, yeah bit of a shock, how could anyone not take the opportunity to call him a c**t? The whole thread was closed after about an hour, and its the first thread i've seen where deletions outnumber comments, by quite a way as well.

    "You have been placed under pre-moderation on several occasions in the past, indicating that your conduct has been inappropriate. This should have been ample warning, but you have continued to demonstrate a sustained disregard for the community standards.

    I'm afraid we will not enter into any further discussion on this subject. Thank you for your contribution to Comment Is Free over the last few years, and good luck in the future."

  21. Oh dear, seems a bit arbitrary, I had a minor meltdown the other day on the nurse being struck off thread in which I was liberal in my spraying of fucks and cunts at quite a few people. My more abusive posts were deleted but I didn't get a ticking off or nuthin', even though I'm apparently on a final warning.

  22. "Good luck in the future"?
    wtf? They're really heading to an 'I agree with the writer, only more so' set up like the Torygraph.
    Look forward to seeing Ray E Giles turn up...

  23. Greetings:

    I saw the link, so followed it here. Was involved in a webgroup of CiFers organized to protest bannings during the 'Khartoumi affair'. Hate to be a wetblanket, but diligent, reasonable efforts to have bannings revoked were met only with negative feedback.
    If a hippy cryptofascist redneck libertarian socialist punk cowboy can be of any help, I'll be glad to support any reasonable venture - such as lending my signature to a mass email, etc.
    good luck

  24. roachclip had a good idea:

    The Tony Blair/Sierra Leone thread has taught us something important. If the moderators insist on continuing to censor our posts to the extent that they have done with no rational explanation, then we can force them to close down any thread we choose by giving them more work than they can handle.

    Ban censorship - Overwork the moderators

  25. 'The Banned' could invent new monikers that would confuse the bastards at CiF. MonkeyReilly, HankFish, JayScorpio, WoollyHuntedHermine.

    However, what an eerie email, Jay. Says it all really. I want nothing to do with that site anymore. They can have their endogames and smellthecoffees all they want, and publish Blair and Phibbs as regular contributors. I don't give a toss anymore.

  26. This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted. The CiF commissariat also controls this site.

  27. btw, as another example of bizarre moderation, they have been happy to keep up the ridiculous conspiracy theory comments over swine flu even though these only detract from debate by requiring people to keep explaining to idiots why they are idiots.

  28. Toast & Marmite30 April, 2009 14:21

    They've gone bonkers, utterly bonkers. Whilst I've seen Jay get heated, he (almost) always played the ball not the man. (Spats with UltimaThule are completely understandable and why the fuck has she not been banned?)

    Regardless of whether I agreed with him or not on a particular subject, I always admired his debating skills. (Apologies for the hagiography Jay, sure it's making you squirm.)

    We really do have to take some sort of stand against this, I would be quite happy to put my (real) name to a joint letter to the Guardian.

  29. Oh my fucking word!!!!!!!!

    Ishouldapologise's user name is not available!!! He's been banned! CiF is over and finished!

  30. Brian Whitaker30 April, 2009 14:34

    Hang on a minute. The rules are quite plain, aren't they? "C..." counts as personal abuse. No doubt about that.

    Anyway, Jay had already been untrusted four times before.

  31. Jay, FWIW, I decided to use my last few posts on Cif in your defence. After ultima posted this:

    "Kizbot; Oh, has he? I know you liked him, but I must say I'm happy. Even you must admit he was way out of line many times. I'm not just referring to myself, I've personally seen him get quite nasty to many posters. But I will not talk of him no further since he is not here to defend himself."

    I posted this:

    ""I've personally seen him get quite nasty to many posters."

    By saying things like this, you mean? By calling someone a liar and fantasising about "flagged comments"? No wait, that was you!

    "Don't ban woolly. Ban Jay Reilly. There is person that writes falsehoods and prevents the correction from being seen by flagging it. (because it's off topic) I've also seen his flagged comments and they're in whole other level than just personal abuse."

    I admire your hypocrisy. Glad you're happy."

    Needless to say, my post was deleted about 5 minutes later and all ultima's posts still stand. It happened so fast that I'm sure she reported 'abuse'. I mean, if my post was off-topic (which it was), so was her's. Still, fuck her anyway. I couldn't be bothered questioning the mods as to reason for deletion.

  32. Just checked his blogspot and it looks like he jumped before he was pushed:


    It really looks like the end of CiF as we know it.

  33. Brian, since this is a free site everyone is welcome and say what they want, but congrats on posting a weasely comment on Blair's thread. Hope you feel really proud of yourself.

  34. OK Brian, 'cunt' is verboten, so why wasn't I banned for using it the other day (and on many other days previously)?

    Why is being racist a less serious offense?

  35. Kiz has given them until Monday - I'll do the same.

    Could all go and remove our profiles or whatever at an agreed time?

  36. Caleb says:

    Sorry to hear it Jay. It's probably just the CiF mods trying to reduce their workload. And as for Ultima or BTH I wouldn't worry about them being smug. Relieved is probably a better word. You certainly didn't give them an easy ride!

  37. For fucks sake.....

    Interesting that the editor has no influence here. Who do the mods answer to? Emily Bell? Maybe Georgina? I think this may be why protesting about moderation on cif gets nowhere.... they have no control over them.

  38. "Could all go and remove our profiles or whatever at an agreed time?"

    I'd be game for that. Arrange it on here, before hand, and then clock off. There's plenty of people p!ssed off about the modding so I reckon there would certainly be interest.


  39. I've "reported abuse" on quite a few of Ultimathule's posts, usually for personal abuse, occasionally for hate speech - and only her more offensive posts, because nearly all of them are abusive and hateful in some way. Oddly enough they're almost never deleted. Maybe she's a mate of theirs.

    So what do we do? Fill every thread with posts calling Mr Tony a war criminal and a c*nt?

  40. "Could all go and remove our profiles or whatever at an agreed time?"

    For that to achieve anything they've got to care, and they don't.

  41. The only thing you can do is to not click/go on their website and thus deprive them of (albeit a minimal) profit.

  42. Thanks all, nice to see ciffers sticking up for each other in these dark days, even some posters who i dont remember ever talking to, but very much appreciated, so thanks again to all.

    "Anyway, Jay had already been untrusted four times before."

    I did a little arithmetic, Brian, this equates to around one session in premod for every 1,800 comments posted. Is that really such an awful poster that banning is needed? Also, why didnt i get a warning like others have? Why wasnt i allowed to discuss it with the mods? They have just banned me and told me to fuck off basically and now ignore my emails. Regulars who post all day every day will of course over time end up collecting a few premod scars, yet the fascists who stroll in just for the BNP thread are fine and dandy. Good work.

    Ciffers like cif because of the other ciffers, not for the general shite that gets printed, we can read establishment journalism and weasel words anywhere. So when you start culling your regular posters it does start to create a bit of a nasty atmosphere and you dont even realise. If enough ciffers came here and wrote articles here i would happily never give your site a single 'hit' again.

  43. Freedom of speech is alive and well (just not for Jay and some others). The BNP thread - brand new likeable poster Endogamist has now posted 22 times - first one yesterday, latest 20 minutes ago. The future of Cif? A cherished regular who frequents the threads for a reasoned debate? Perhaps. As Matt said:

    "But in the long term, I think it has to be a healthy thing – not to inhabit a ghetto of the bien-pensant likeminded and be able to harbour the illusion that this is how 'most people' think. This is a reality check."

    So bring 'em on! Nutjobs, fascists, racists, scum. It's a healthy thing. All are welcome on the new Cif!

    Good luck with that, guys.

  44. "For that to achieve anything they've got to care, and they don't"

    Depends how many I suppose, I still reckon it's worth sounding out


  45. "For that to achieve anything they've got to care, and they don't."

    No, they really dont. They treat ciffers like shit because they know they can always gets hits somewhere else even if we did all piss off.

  46. Did you ever think about trying to not break the rules, Jay?

  47. Can we do it better and do it here? Fuck 'em.

  48. I'm all for finding another place to loiter virtually, although I do actually like reading and supporting Graun stuff from time to time, particularly those articles by Ally.

    Can't we just settle this with the mods like grown ups? i.e. get them in a headlock and administer Chinese burns.

  49. I intend to remove my profile from CiF - if I can do it as part of a concerted effort so much the better. Could anyone tell me how to do it?

  50. What might be an option is for Jay to take a few weeks off, and then send off a politely worded email to the mods saying he's changed his ways and certainly shan't be calling anyone a cunt any more, and please may he come back out to play please.

  51. I've been thinking about this (it's BB btw) and I reckon the better thing to do would be to come back with a variation on one's nick (btw has Woolly risen on the third day as Woolover?). It seems a shame for the good guys and gals on here to be put off by a bunch of faceless (and clearly gormless) mods.

    Just my tuppence worth.

  52. "Did you ever think about trying to not break the rules, Jay?"

    Who are you?

  53. Regarding a "boycott" of reading/contributing to Cif -
    It may well be that our decreasing the number of "hits" makes little or no difference to their advertising revenue (although there are be dozens of ads and links on every page, hence the slow loading). It may well be that the number of comments for an article falls somewhat. It may well be that it makes no difference at all to their winning fucking Webbies and blog awards (they do seem to like that sort of thing). It may well be that the unemployment rate for no-talent Oxbridge graduates rises. It may well be that they don't give a shit whether we turn up or not.

    But, you know what? It'll make ME feel a whole lot fucking better. So bye-bye Cif.

  54. "Who are you?"

    The ghost of CIF-mas past.

  55. "Did you ever think about trying to not break the rules, Jay?"

    Erm... the goal posts seem to keep moving depending on who the poster is and who is above the line. Oh, and who has a little girly whine about them as well at times.

    Rules should be applied consistently or not at all (and that includes the ATL contributors)

  56. How about we copy and paste Blair's article here and then we can swear at him to our hearts' content?

  57. "The ghost of CIF-mas past."

    I think Jay meant what name you post on CiF as.

  58. "What might be an option is for Jay to take a few weeks off, and then send off a politely worded email to the mods saying he's changed his ways and certainly shan't be calling anyone a cunt any more, and please may he come back out to play please."

    I dont mind grovelling, i have done regularly, and i have already said to Seaton im happy to discuss it and meet any requirements the mods ask for. I think Blair is the only person on cif i have ever called a c**t, apart from Mitchell and that was a joke.

  59. "The ghost of CIF-mas past."

    Ah, i see, one of those...

  60. olching
    Brillian idea...

  61. "They've got you too, Whitt?"

    "They got me a long time ago, Hank."...

    Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself.

    Hank loved Matt Seaton.

  62. "It seems a shame for the good guys and gals on here to be put off by a bunch of faceless (and clearly gormless) mods."

    I have thought about this too - why let them win when you can just spawn a brand new moniker, but i just resent having to abandon my moniker because i called blair a c*nt. But since they know we can do this anyway, why do they bother banning and pissing people off?

  63. "because i called blair a c*nt"

    It's demonstrably true. I'd like to see that in libel court - you'd win!

  64. I see Seaton has waded in to give his full backing to my banning, cheers Matt.

  65. so do we do this democratically? Vote on what we should do?
    Just not post for a few weeks (STRIKE!)
    Leave completely - just don't go back
    Send them an e-mail to demand the re-instatement of of those who were banned.
    send them an e-mail demanding we unsubscribe.

    I can't see how we unsubscribe. Does anyone know?

    Just some ideas

  66. Commiserations and all, Jay, but at least you went out in a blaze of glory in the service of the truth.

    What Seaton and his gang (blows a kiss at Brian) are discovering is that their obsession with the ratings (page hits) has consequences. They parade before us a series of shysters, liars and Islington airheads, spouting either vacuous nonsense, self-serving bullshit or provocative cant, with the clear intention of generating as many responses as possible.

    And then they feign outrage when these Aunt Sallies get the abuse they so clearly deserve.

    It's cheap journalism, Seaton, if it can be classified as journalism at all, and it's a betrayal of the Guardian's heritage.

  67. Very true Hank, its a shame though, it really is, CIF used to be absolutely fantastic.

  68. An effective protest would be to set up numerous fake identities and swamp cif with the most vile insults imaginable. The identity gets banned, make a new one, 5 minutes work at most. Repeat ad nauseaton.

  69. I can't see how we unsubscribe. Does anyone know?

    Anne, according to Jessica Reed: "I'm not a mod! If you e-mail them and just tell them your username, they should be able to delete the account."

  70. So we each post an e-mail in a specific time slot?

  71. Hank, what you describe is of course the old problem of subjective (or direct) and systemic violence, and sadly the Graun contributes towards that.

    In other words, it is deemed far worse to read the word 'cunt' by JayReilly on a thread (because it is in their face) than to give a criminal like Blair space, because his crimes are not directly visible.

    The absurd upshot of this is of course that Seaton and Whitaker (amongst others) end up defending the criminal over the act of justified frustration. They thus become part of the continuing systemic violence.

    This is what pissed me off about the faux outrage about the RBS' windows being smashed. It's a trifling matter compared to the violence exercised by the neoliberal tools used by the banks and bankers, yet the outrage was directed at a bunch of teenagers rather than the fat cats. Subjective/direct violence (which by the way is almost always explicable) is far more often than not deemed far more reprehensible than the systemic.

    Jay, not meaning to compare your 'cunt' to the smashing of RBS, and I hope you don't mind, but it somehow illustrates my point.

  72. Hi olching, yeh that's what I meant to say but I haven't finished reading that "Marx and Coca-Cola" book you reccommended yet (-;

    But yeh to sum up in two words - bourgeois hypocrisy. Wankers.

  73. @commanderkeen - the new ids idea won't work for reasons Bitterweed set out on an earlier thread, ie they keep a close eye on ip addresses so unless you got a new modem you'd find your new id in pre-mod or banned pretty sharpish.

    @Sealion - thanks!

  74. Is swamping Cif with vile insults likely to annoy Cif or the innocent posters on the threads? We're not schoolchildren, are we? Bad idea.

  75. Hank - tor

  76. scherfig - ok, not vile insults - maybe just post a list of all banned commentators, repeatedly

  77. would that not equally annoy other posters?

  78. maybe - but it wouldn't offend them. direct action does annoy people, it doesn't mean it's not a valid tactic.

  79. a valid tactic to what ends? what exactly do you think this drastic action is likely to achieve?

  80. Whatever, commander, but count me out. I doubt if I'll be posting on Cif again.

  81. @CK - "Hank - tor" ? "Goal"? My German's a bit rusty...

    Who is this bleeding "anonymous" timewaster anyway?

  82. Good posts all, Hank - classic. Olching - no offence taken, excellent post.

    I really dont know what to suggest folks, i just want somewhere to discuss the politics of the day without being shat on by smug jobsworths and ideally somewhere where we're all welcome. When you debate with a certain crowd for a couple of years its a bit sad to have to go off elsewhere, its the cif crowd i will miss, not cif.

    Hank, monkeyfish, whats your experience of making a new moniker, do they pick up the IP address and ban you sharpish?

  83. tor anonymises your ip.


  84. AllyF, if you are reading this:

    Applause for your comment on the 'what do you want to talk about' thread. Wonderfully put, though it won't alter the 'walk-out' at CiF.

  85. Ah thanks sealion (and commander) - Jay, there's your answer, mate. If you're interested.

    Agreed, olching, top post from AllyF.

    Liked fencesitter's too, in a perverse sort of way. I've already said on here that I accepted the reason for my ban, I could be an intemperate bastard, particularly with trolls, and given that fencesitter was spouting some tired old right-wing crap on his first visit, it seemed safe to class him as a troll.

    But the point remains that politics excites strong emotions in people, and much as the comfy, complacent, ivory tower liberals might find anger a little upsetting, they are hosting a rough and tumble debate not a vicarage tea party, as Pikey memorably put it the other day.

    And if seaton really thinks that racist posts are not routinely deleted on CiF, he should take his fucking head out of his arse.

  86. Oops, if seaton really thinks that racist posts are deleted on CiF - ignore the "not", where's the bleeding edit function, Montana?!

  87. Jay Reilly

    Commiserations. Still, least you're one of the cool kids now. Probably be seeing behind the bikesheds for a quick fag before Geography.

    I suspect they can monitor IP's but it might be a bit of hassle and they only bother once they suspect something. Not sure really.

    I was Captain Lard for 5 posts before I was pre-modded for some fairly innocuous stuff and I've got one at present but I'm only using it when something really pisses me off and the only alternative would be kicking the monitor. % posts so far..no deletions or anything. Although to be honest cif loses its appeal once you can't post. I suspect that, like myself, you're not one of life's spectators and once you know you can't respond, you tend to stay away.

    It wouldn't surprise me if they're having a clearout before the much vaunted moderation thread. Maybe save your new id until then. I'm happy enough posting on here at present. We could do with a few more threads though. I might write something myself after Hank does one. Your turn Hank I'm afraid; why not go for a fluffy 'lifestyle' filler piece? Something about duvet covers or organic lager?

  88. On the plus side, Jay, your banning has caused a shitstorm and even brought Georgina onto the thread. Thats a sign that they're taking this seriously, at least.

  89. "Liked fencesitter's too, in a perverse sort of way. I've already said on here that I accepted the reason for my ban, I could be an intemperate bastard, particularly with trolls, and given that fencesitter was spouting some tired old right-wing crap on his first visit, it seemed safe to class him as a troll."
    Still getting the name wrong, I see. Actually we didn't argue because I was saying anything 'right wing' (as defined by you), but because you'd brutally pumelled and misrepresented someone. I was just riding by on a white charger (colour not significant, before you kick off) and then you told me to fuck off and never, ever presume to speak again (toned down). But the point is, you thought I was a troll, I disagree; I thought you were a thuggish Berchmans-style twanger; no doubt you disagree - it's the only place I read your stuff, so if it was uncharacteristic, as your reputation might suggest, I apologise. I think we'd both agree that the other guys can judge and so be it. I'd far rather re-run that argument with you than read the kind of crap that Nosveratu just posted. I hope Seaton sees that he's going down the plough on with 42 Days route, but I doubt it. Perhaps we could then publicly call eachother fuckers in The Other Place.

    Fencewalker (that's walker, not sitter. Don't fake the funk, Hank)

    (the other anonymous isn't me, at least not since 'we wish you succcess' wtf? earlier).

  90. Fencesomethingorother30 April, 2009 18:16

    Great, now I'm not anonymous anyway.

  91. Hey monkeyfish, "before Geography"? The cool kids didn't do geography. We already knew where it was at, maaan.

    Like the idea of a lifestyle piece. I'm thinking a Jay Rayner-style piece about the ethics of tipping at Notting Hill's very chi-chi new Afghani brasserie.

    "I was comfortably bloated after my main course of slaughtered goat on a bed of asparagus (£150 for two, no wine for some reason, but clearly within the reach of even the most modestly paid of us) but I was suffering agonies about whether I should tip the admirably obsequious waiters or up my direct debit to Oxfam to £2 a month instead.

    "As ever, I was indebted to Mummy, who provided me with an entree even more succulent than the sweetmeats prepared with meticulous care by the new sous chef, Mr Karzai, with whom it turns out I share a mutual friend..."

  92. AllyF - superb post, thanks to all again for support; as we all know such support can have severe consequences these days, particularly for people like Ally who actually have a professional relationship with CiF and rely on it for work, so a big thank you to all.

    If i could just clear a few bits up perhaps someone would be so good as to cut and paste this to the board marking it from me, i would be very grateful indeed:

    Seaton - "And to have a set of rules and then choose to ignore them and waive them at whim would fall into the latter category, in my book."

    Why was premod not sufficient? If i was on a last warning for premod, why wasnt i told about it? Other banned posters were warned, i wasnt.

    As to me being a persistent offender, which both Seaton and Georgina have alluded to, this isnt backed up by the facts - i didnt generally ever abuse writers, and only rarely other posters.

    I was in premod 4 times, only one of which was for personal abuse, i said Ms Shapiro looked like something from a cartoon, so not even a swear word, and she had first launched an angry tirade against Britain and its people. My other 3 premods have not been for abuse nor swearing, nor racism, sexism, fascism or any other ism.

    If Seaton is justifying this because it is a "persistent offence", could he please clarify which other writers i have personally abused.

    Is it not the case, Matt/Georgina, that my other premods have been for talking about moderation (twice) and for pressing the Guardian on perceived hypocrisy regarding Wilders (once)? My offences have been criticisms of the Guardian, not attacks on the writers or the community.

    Finally, as to what i actually said about Blair, they were two short posts, the first expressed regret that he was still alive (without swearing), and the second was a smallish rant involving the C word and was indeed childish and completely inappropriate and i apologise for that. However, bear in mind who this man is and what he has done.

    Would not a 3 month ban, for example, both send a very strong message without the unpleasant finality of a permanent ban and the ensuing reaction from the rest of the community?

    Finally, i emailed and apologised to the mods for my behaviour before they banned me, that gesture was met with a flat and non negotiable permanent ban and my emails to the mods and Mr Seaton are now being ignored. I think that is quite a shocking way to treat someone who has spent so much time contributing to your website and the "community".

  93. Hank

    OK then before metalwork. Problem is it isn't metalwork any more; it's 'Resistant Materials'. That's a subject I'm sure you'd approve of.

    I was serious actually. I thought you said a while back you'd do one.

  94. @Fencewalker - blimey, bit sensitive about the name...Hey, my reputation is well-known, I'm an intemperate bastard who likes a few beers and doesn't like right-wing trolls. If you weren't a troll, how come I didn't recognise you? (Oh yeh, I've got a really bad memory for names - damn.)

    The field's all yours now, buddy. If I misrepresented you, or misconstrued your point, genuine apologies.

    As I said though, I liked your post. It echoed what Ally had said, and what I've repeatedly said about politics and anger. If people can't deal with a bit of heat, there's plenty of sites out there where posts are pre-modded, everybody agrees that the country's going to the dogs and we're all free to post obnoxious, hateful stuff about blacks, poofs and everyone who isn't like us.

    And that's where CiF is heading. And that's their choice. Clearly.

    Btw, I disagree with your view of Berchie. Naturally.

  95. I will do one, mf, now the footie season's over. For me at least (-:

    Following on from what sealion said above though, we probably need one new thread a day on a topical subject to keep the banned and the disenchanted happy in their new Cif-free lives.

  96. Montana, you have to add Ishouldapologise to the Good, the Bad, and the Banned.

  97. Sorry - still being anon on here but this is from the What do you want to talk about thread - before it gets deleted!

    30 Apr 09, 6:29pm (1 minute ago)

    I notice no one from CiF has responded to AllyF's excellent post above. He is absolutely right. It is the people below the line who make CiF what it is. The comment sections of other newspapers' sites are complete dead zones. I'm pretty sure that Jay Reilly has been banned not for gratuitous use of the word 'cunt' but use of the word 'cunt' against Tony Blair. When I see some of the names who've been banned recently I'm astounded. And yet neo-Nazis are free to peddle their racial theories on BNP related threads. Not that I'm against them being censored, absolutely not, (and I speak as someone who always calls them for what they are - scum), but it comes a bit rich when they're allowed to stay and people as great as Jay Reilly, woolymindedliberal and HankScorpio are banned. Damn your petty (and inconsistent) rules - leave them for the trolls and we all know them when we see them.

  98. Hank - I think all you can do down here is apreview before hitting 'post comment' and bdelete the post and re-write it once it's been posted. I don't think I can change that - it's what blogspot allows.

    Damn. I'm sorry Jay. It really is frustrating to see some of the crap that stays up - apparently without ever even landing in pre-mod. Ultima is one who comes quickly to mind - and not merely because of the way she's gone after Jay.

    I'm up for whatever anyone decides is the best course of action and I'm not particularly fussed about whether or not it seems juvenile. For me, there'd be a bit of catharsis in sending out a few comments without worrying about whether or not they're abusive.

  99. I would have said the name stuff with a smiley, if I could: not really bothered; I thought you were just being a pickle. Anyway, all that's long gone and there's a bigger fight to be had. (totally agree with you on the blacks/poofs stuff - that's what I was on about with this nosveratu cove, who randomly brought in some shit about immigrants in a totally unrelated thread).
    Agree to disagree on Berchie, but I wouldn't even want him banned. I do hope they change their mind.

  100. Ally
    Great post, nailed it.

  101. @Fencewalker - fair do's. Happy to debate with you on here again sometime.

    Btw, dunno how to break this to you but some twat called FatTony has just referred to you as Fencesitter on the modding thread...

    @Montana - oh yeh, blame the software (-;

  102. Whaaaat? The bastard.

  103. Well, I am still there blithely posting away atm, because I can't help feeling that if we all leave, as Pike said a few weeks ago, the dogs bark but the caravan will move on and it won't make the blindest bit of difference.

    On the other hand, if there is to be a concerted, organised period of non-posting for a good number of the regulars, I am totally up for that too. I do enjoy CiF but this is getting bloody silly now.

  104. And yet more modding over on the (stomach-churning) BNP thread:

    30 Apr 09, 6:45pm (26 minutes ago)

    I see my post has now been removed from page 1. It had, when I last looked 227 recommendations. Clearly the Guardian mods don't like free speach.

    With so many people like me having the wrong kind of thoughts and expressing the wrong kind of things this country could become a dangerous place.

    Oh sorry this country is a dangerous place, see 7/7.

  105. Jay, I've posted your comment for you. We'll see what the reaction is, and how long it lasts.

  106. "Jay, I've posted your comment for you. We'll see what the reaction is, and how long it lasts."

    Much appreciated, thanks!

    I see a MsVirago has come on to express her delight at my banning. There is something particularly sad about folk who like to see others banned for daring to challenge their views on thing, it is a horrible mix of insecurity, pettiness and authoritarianism.

  107. Its up twice now! They are both still there!

    I've avoided the BNP thread - will take a look later.

  108. The delete dustbin is just belw BNP on my post!

    How appropriate!

  109. Yeh, saw msVirago's post, Jay, it's a peach, innit?

    Well done, paddybrown, I'd have posted it myself but was busy on Mitchell's blog and anyway I'm in pre-mod despite having done nothing more serious than to respond to EvilTory's post in which he described the PM as "lower than dogshit" by quoting his phrase and saying "oh dear".

    Oh, that and asking whether "silenthunter" and "UncleVanya" have ever been seen in the same place...

    olching, it's not "Tiergarten" mate. Although I'm guessing they both scoff at the same trough. Who funds Guido's site btw?

  110. annetan

    The BNP thread has calmed down a bit for the moment, until the Nutzi night shift comes on board.

    Heheh- looking at my little lad with his home-designed t-shirt atm: Stand Up To Racism - Stop the BNP.

    Chip off the old block, that 'un :o)

  111. annetan42:
    You need a stiff drink before going anywhere near the BNP thread, it#s appalling.
    Perhaps we should all re-register with CiF. Something along the lines of:

  112. Fat Tony

    I see speedkermit's been posting on the BNP thread. Has nobody ever invited him over? I like arguing the toss with speedkermit and he's a good laugh.

  113. Ah, just as I said. The Night-Shift Nutzis are out and about now. Funny, I would have thought they would be down the pub at this time of night!

  114. Jay
    You have a thread beginning on heresy corner:

  115. JohnnyTightlips30 April, 2009 20:41

    I've said before, monkeyfish, or some bloke who looks remarkably like me might have said it, that speedkermit should be invited over.

    I've had the occasional (!) fall out with speedkermit but he's a worthy opponent. I respect him even if I hardly ever agree with him.

    And I ain't saying nothing more.

  116. Btw monkeyfish, FatTony's just sneaked a little rant in on the BNP thread....

  117. It won't last Jay, but FWIW I couldn't stand BTH's gloating so I said this:


    "although I have stepped in where I've felt his abuse has become bullying to others."

    Well done! Protecting the ladies! And when he called you a

    "revolting male feminist-sycophant"

    that was totally out of order. He should have called you an obsessive, cyberstalking, retarded fuckwit. Still, nobody's perfect. Although you're close to being the perfect dickhead (excuse my use of a sexist term). Enjoy your cookies on the new Cif.

    Apologies to Ally here for going off-topic on a decent article.

  118. FatTony

    *high five*

    I recognise the style, btw. Quality rant as always! Nice one mate. :o)


  119. scherfig - what thread is that on?

  120. Ally's thread (totally derailed unfortunately).

  121. And modded, sherfig - they've deleted your most excellent post which several of us had already recommended

  122. Sorry 'bout the spelling there, scherfig

  123. Thanks BB. It is fucking inevitable though isn't it? All those right wing twats who whine on and on about the police state when they get nicked for speeding, or claim that the ZaNuLabStasi client state will be spying on their recycling habits, will be cheering on the coppers when they kick the shit out of desperate working men and women who protest against their redundancies so that the comfy middle classes...well, you know.

    Made me laugh t'other day when Seaton claimed to be an old leftie. Like fuck he was. He was a "new leftie" to his fucking bones. Identity politics bollocks and never a care for anyone less well off than him, unless they lived in Africa and he could get a byline out of it.


  124. So this is where you are all hiding!

    Can I make a protest suggestion?? If the Daily Mail/Torygraph/Times/Beeb/etc found out about the uprising at CiF, I reckon they'd run with it and hopefully embarrass M&G into relenting.

    Anyone know how?

  125. MozP

    Heh. Might make for a good story in the Daily Hate Mail, but I dunno that it would make much difference.


  126. Tomorrow is May 1. An appropriate date on which to "resign" from Cif. I will be sending them an Email requesting deletion of my registration, profile, archived comments and all personal details.

  127. It's a massacre isn't it? What the hell's going on? I've hardly bothered of late but the place seems to have gone to buggery.

    I mean, what the hell was Wooly banned for?

    Oh BTW hello Mendoza and ninemile.

  128. Quality comment, scherfig, but be careful or they'll have you gone next. Typical BTH, the revolting comment wasnt even by me, i merely quoted another poster who said it (with much amusement, obviously), but being the little weasel that he is he keeps claiming it as an example of the horrendous abuse that i dish out so regularly. If the lightweights of CiF ever unionised, BTH would be a solid candidate for the leadership.

    Speedkermit is indeed a worthy poster, and wheatfromchaff.

    I'd like to know which bright spark made the decision to start banning regulars at the drop of a hat. Another puzzle is why they even opened up the Blair piece to comments, they knew full well exactly what would happen, everyone did.

  129. Ok, heres my suggestion:

    Some point soon, Matt is going to write a piece on moderation to go with the new community guidelines. At that point I think we should all contribute our thoughts on what is wrong with cif (by proxy for those who have been banned).

    We certainly won't be alone and I think the moderation issue has been building for so long now that its going to come to the boil on that thread, in fact its probably going to be utter carnage and anybody who's had themselves deleted is probably going to regret it just for that one thread. For anyone leaving, this is also the time to say why because absolutely everyone is going to be reading it.

    Maybe I'm wrong, and this will be another flop like the Magnum Opus, but I strongly suspect that this is going to be the cif community at its angriest, most intelligent best.

  130. Sorry, Jay. I know you've said how much posting on cif means to you, but given the way things have gone there recently, I hope you'll see it as something of an opportunity. Write the same things but somewhere else: here for example. It's not so big a step, is it?

    Let's leave cif to vile sycophants like BTH. Maybe even Seaton will get bored.

  131. It's certainly a massacre, staybryte. Tony Blair's article and the treatment thereof was the final straw for me following the 2.0 'revolution' and increase in right-wingers on the website. Really not my thing.

    I think it's a sign of the shift of Guardian policy in general in the last 1 - 2 years. The fact that the Graun would host an article by Tony Blair on an international issue is beyond the pale.

    The population of Liverpool stopped buying The Sun after the Hillsborough 'Truth' headline and in many ways I feel the same about the factors above and especially the Tony Blair article.

    Matt Seaton is a prime example of this shift. His frappucino-swilling manner - claiming to be a leftie - is a sad indictment of where the Guardian and CiF has gone.

    Though this may not resonate with other posters on this blog, I feel that, sadly, this is an indication of the shift to the right that this country is currently experiencing. I cannot express my loathing of this shift in any meaningful way. The hosting and protection of Tony Blair exemplifies it beautifully. The increasingly shrill right-wing voices below the line, too.

    But since Seaton and fellow non-entities don't understand politics (I think that's what it essentially boils down to), the only thing they care about are largely unengaging posts ('race replacement' isn't as painful to his tender ears as 'cunt') and apolitical drivel. He probably thinks Harry Phibbs is 'ironic' and Tony Blair is a 'scoop' (even if it's the Graun who commissioned the cunt (copyright JR)).

    No, no, the drift to the meaningless apolitical wilderness and the trolling meaningless right is too much for me. They can go fuck themselves at CiF. No more hits from me.

  132. Well that's a shame olching. I've described my cif posting style as "embittered, foul-mouthed, drink-fuelled reactionary emotionalism" which might put me at odds with a few, but I've enjoyed the last couple of years and it's a shame to see the place nosedive like this.

    Incidentally if HankScorpio is awake someone called "houses" was asking where you'd gone on a cif thread about the poet laureate nonsense (UndergroundMan turned up as well) I posted a link in this direction.

    Night now.

  133. Bannedbycastro

    I was banned for the fifth time.
    I called Shameless a racist shit, and was not allowed to use the truth defense.

  134. Just got in from work. The unanimity is astonishing...

  135. Hey, Bitterweed! Take it you had a gig? Going to bed soon or can we look forward to some YouTubing?

  136. Talking of youtube, I've just found the best video ever....


  137. I got the same email, and fromthe same self-righteous little twerp-Adam (Toynbee? Rusbridger?). I was banned because another poster, long acknowledged as a paranoid loon, complained that I had 'bullied' them.

    I pointed out that this was utter nonsense and afer checking the facts, Adam wrote back informing me that no bullying had occured but that I was now banned for signing up under a new user name (and making no secret of it).

    Typical Grauniad logic. I was banned for something I did after, erm...I was banned.

    Still, how delighful to see so many old lags gathered in one place...

  138. Love it, Sealion. She's a national treasure, that woman.

  139. Yeah, I'd noticed that all of these banning e-mails are coming from 'Adam', too. I wonder if 'Adam' actually exists, or if it's just a name they put at the end of the e-mails to make it seem like it's from an individual?

  140. Adam Rutherfood, I believe

  141. This 'Adam' has certainly been in place for a while. I was banned last March (2008). Of course, out of pure contrariness, I returned in a seemingly endless parade of guises, again, never making any secret of my identity. I'd sometimes get banned 3 times in one day under different user names.

    When I finally got to @artpepper, they evidently tired of a game they couldn't possibly win and just left me alone (aside from the usual arbitrary and senseless deletions).

    Now I find that CIF has gone so far downhill and the pace of deletions so frantic that I can't be bothered anymore. Pity. It used to be something special.

    I think the rot set in with the Gogartygate debacle, when the Grauniad showed their true colours by first insulting their reader's intelligence, then lying to them and then, the final matchless imbecility, turning on their readers and publishing 3 articles atttacking and abusing us for daring to voice doubts about Master Gogarty's qualifications to write for the Grauniad.

    How wrong I was. I now realize that the simpering, vapid litle twerp was perfect for the Grauniad.

    Dim? Check. Got place through nepotism? Check. Self-regarding driveller? Check. Whinger when challenged? Check. Spends more time on his clothes and hair than polishing his picayune writing skills? Check.

    I'm surprised they didn't make the bastard managing editor.

  142. Actually, I've been wondering if maybe Ultimathule had a hand in Jay's being banned. I mean, she's been calling for it for quite awhile and she, herself, seems to be untouchable as far as modding goes. She gets away with saying some of the most outrageous things and gets really vicious with other posters -- especially Jay, as we all know. And now he's banned without warning. Who knows what kind of complaining she could've been doing behind the scenes.

  143. When I was premodded a while ago, after the trainwreck on Andrew Brown's blog when he had a bad tempered go at us atheists who post there aimed squarely at myself one of the things the mods accused me of was 'attempting to engage with the ATL poster'. I tried to explain to them that it was, like, you know? a blog? and he chipped in BTL in discussions etc. They further accused me of trolling with examples which I was easily able to defend, their English comprehension not be being so hot.

    What became clear was that they seemed to take no account of context when judging comments. It also seems clear that they make no distinction between comments in response to drive by columnists in bulk CiF and those to their bloggers with whom posters develop a relationship. Anyway after Making that point and musing that I might raise it with the Reader's Editor my posting rights were mysteriously reinstated.

    So some fear of the Reader's Editor's wrath perhaps? So if we are going to send off a mass signed letter of some sort perhaps that is where it should go?

    Also I agree TB is a cunt, that should be treated as fair comment. And the situation with Ultimathule is ridiculous. I think I might take to objecting to her posts on principle.

  144. Morning all, is the Graun site down? I cant even get on the website now but my internet is working (evidently).

    Martillo, i can write stuff here i suppose, and i could respond to Graun pieces including quotes (i think, or would that be copyright issue?), and if people start responding to articles here by making a new thread on an article, then perhaps we can get some good debate going here and attract all those pissed off with the Graun but still wanting the opportunity to respond to the issues raised.

    Im not entirely sure why i am so gutted over this, i spend most my day on cif, i love the cif crowd (for the people i like, the people who are hilarious, and the lightweights for sparring practice), and its also i suppose my only real form of political engagement. In such a centralised, pitiful "democracy" as this, the opportunity to actually get your views out on a major broadsheet and engage with the people rather than the establishment (which the Guardian is well and truly part of) is quite unique, so to lose CiF seems something of a withdrawal from the political sphere, or a forced removal rather.

    I can come back under a new moniker (unless they have blocked this IP) but for some reason that isnt an attractive option at all, though i may still do it. But regardless i certainly think i will be writing more here, and articles, and hopefully others will too.

    The mod thread will be a very good opportunity to voice feelings, gutted i wont get to take part. I emailed Seaton and Georgina last night but no response yet, perhaps i will email readers editor.

    The Adam is Adam Boult - he only signs off as Adam but i saw it on his email address, he was the first person to premod me too.

    Montana - i was wondering about ultima, i know she regularly reported my comments for abuse so wouldnt surprise if she sent a few emails asking for me to be banned. Also wouldnt surprise if the likes of the F word and other feminist sponsors of the site had made their views plain on the issue of JR.

    Mendoza mentioned the elephant in the room, or rather the sacred cow as he put it, and i think that certainly is the feminist issue. Seaton with his "with burning" comment, telling AllyF it was unwise to associate with me, Bidisha too expressed her loathing on one thread, it seems certain folk just cant handle debate and prefer to censor their opponents - look at the joy from BTH and ultima. Then there was a couple of posters popped up on the WDYWTTA thread who i have never seen before to express their support for the banning - and this makes me really, really angry, people who havent got the balls or the wit to debate so resort to cheering on the banning of those they dislike. Snivelling pond life.

  145. Also, i cant get on the Graun website, couuld someone post the email address for readers editor?

  146. Actually Jay, following on from what Martillo said about finding somewhere else to write, maybe you could try submitting some articles yourself?

  147. I can take a fair amount of hypocrisy... but I've had enough now... Much as I ove playing on cif all day, I'm not going to if they don't reconsider their attitude to bannings... fuck 'em... really!

  148. Can't believe you've been banned Jay!

    Let me know all what we decide to do (write in, mass protest, ask to be deleted, whatever) and I'm in! (as long as I'm near an internet connection, seem to be spending more time waist deep in rivers in hail storms at the mo!)

  149. commanderkeen01 May, 2009 09:30

    adam boult? I've had the odd email from him. He gave me my final warning for telling some uptight catholic anti-choice frothing atl nutter to fuck off.

    and yeah, seaton's politics, he thinks i'm some raving swp leftie for saying that private education is unacceptable for anyone of left wing sympathies. I mean jesus fucking christ, i'm solid middle class but with parents who were in the civil service and public health and who made it clear to me that I was lucky to have a reasonably comfortable existence and I should always understand that most people wouldn't get my chances in life but that was no reason to ignore them or dosmiss them. My parents think the guardian is a bunch of lifestyle middle class crap now and they've given up on it (apart from brooker - who my mum approves of). One of the few times my mother has sworn in my presence was over that 'fucking awful williams woman'. they can't find another paper to reinforce their lefty beliefs and that's fucking tragic.

  150. Oh gawd... this is really too much - Gilda on AllyFs thread:

    "he's reponsible for some of the nastiest abuse I've seen, usually when he was losing a fight. How very immature, not to be able to be a man about losing and do it graciously. Also think it was nasty the way he kept attacking the feminist writers on personal grounds, such as their appearance."

    Can someone PLEASE go on that thread and ask Gilda to give some examples of this vile abuse and attacks on writer's appearance, this is what i fucking hate about these people, they lie and make shit up cos its all they can do when people shit on their stupid fucking dogma, gilda, BTH, Ultima... And typical for these little whimps to wait until im banned before they launch into these little tirades..

    (i can get on site again now, must have been down)

  151. I've been reading the guardian for 25 fucking years... and I hate the freakin Indy... It is indeed tragic that there isn't one rotten paper worth reading..

  152. Hi misharialadwani, you're probably right about Gogarty-gate, though I suspect it can be attributed to a shift in Guardian policy to an even greater lifestyle newspaper than it already was.

    Montana, misharialadwani should also be added to the list.

    Yes, CommanderKeen, Seaton is a vague lifestyle yuppie who doesn't understand politics but - for some unknown reason - think he 'left-wing'. Teh Guardian/CiF offices must be swarming with prats like him.

  153. commanderkeen01 May, 2009 09:54

    olching - i did tell him that thinking you are left wing is not the same as being left wing and that his paper was liberal centre right, which I think is a fair description.
    I don't mind his politics, I accept that people want to buy advantage for their children at the expense of others. It does make them the enemy of progress though.

    I think he even tried to accuse me of class envy. FFS, I'm a middle class academic living in France, people are envious of me!

  154. Olching I agree with that. I think its because there is no longer acredible left voice in national politics.

    Its very significnat that even right wing old labour can sound left wing now. At least they have some sort of regard for the working class.

    It has become acceptable to be scornfull of the poor Caneron's accent has become increasingly clipped and superior there's a tone of attacking brown not because he.s incompetant but because he's a 'grammar school 'oik'- very Tom Brown's schooldays that!

    The left urgently needs to get its act together because otherwise getting banned from Cif will be the least of our worries.

  155. Kizbot
    Me too, spent an hour last night drafting a resignation letter to Georgina, especially regarding:
    1) The poor quality of above-line writing, and the frustration and resentment it causes among punters, hence the boorish jeering and obscene variations of WTF?! They never address the quality. It’s a given their writers are little A Stars, and that irks me before I’ve even got the kettle on. It’s like a smug little cabal of sixth formers who’ve never got laid.

    2) The lack of said offending writers’ engagement when the quality of research and presentation is so obviously lacking, and even office cat is chuckling in the corner.

    3) The over-defensive moderation that occurs when our intelligence is repeatedly insulted like this. People get angry and just start throwing abuse in the most imaginative way. Exhibit A: monkeyfish. Had me howling in the past, he’s a hard gobby bastard and it works a treat. Their response ? That’s hurting peoples’ feelings you nasty wuff man. Deleted.

    4) And anyway. Throwing humerous abuse and derision is part of political discourse. The over sensitive preppy little numpties need to get out of their intellectual equivalent of mummy’s fucking Volvo and take a look at desolation row the rest of us are, in our own ways, trying to do something about. It is hard. It is brutal, there is savage unfairness every fucking waking day, you’ve only got to look out of the yard. CiF like to think they’ve got the handle on this, they’re cool, they’re down with the streets. Bollocks are they.

    But then thought, fuck it, they should be able to work this out, in fact they probably have... Do you know what it occurred to me? Fuck the quality, they’ve decided... fuck the journalistic standards when you’ve got comoonity standards...
    No. It’s just become a tedious ratings-obsessed conveyor-belt of JCR anecdote and juvenile prejudice, policed by baton wielding mosquitoes.
    That’s an editorial decision, same as the BBC’s decision to have daytime TV aimed only at moral and intellectual bivalves.

    So fuck them.

    I’m out.

  156. "Actually Jay, following on from what Martillo said about finding somewhere else to write, maybe you could try submitting some articles yourself?"

    Submit where, the Graun? Or other websites? I should do, maybe i'll have to start, i can def put articles up here so maybe that be one way to get something, and i have a friend at a foreign but english language news channel who has said i am always welcome to write for them, so i dunno, see how it goes, i just dont wannna troop off by myself without you bunch of rather amusing degenerates ;)

    Kiz, maybe sit tight till the modding thread - if its a genuine discussion between them and us then perhaps they will make changes.

    Dot - yeah, bit of a shock mate, i'm still trying to resolve this diplomatically but not looking too good right now.

  157. By the way, Ishouldapologise contacted me and said that this site and Heresycorner has been reported as phishing sites and that the MCafee anti-virus software has blocked them.

    I have no idea what this means (it's 'Greek' to me), but he seems to suggest that this is intentional reporting as "brand protection". Any ideas? Like I said, I have no idea what this means, I'm just passing on information from ISA.

    CK, absolutely right. That's why Mish is right about the Gogarty affair being a sure signpost of where the Graun has gone. That and the endless 'post-ironic' lists of the 50 most organic buggies and the 25 most fairtrade nappies and 'Oh! Have you got a guilty conscience when getting on your 25th flight a year? Hehehe!'.

    Annetan, expect things to get far far worse. David Starkey is everywhere extolling the virtues of an 'ordered society' etc...

  158. Hi Jay

    That's a very shitty thing that's been done to you. I gave up CiF a while ago, got tempted back in by some terribly written piece of shite posturing as comment, got enraged as usual, suffered a couple of deletions, have posted my final post this morning because of what they've done to you. FUCK THE LOT OF THEM, they can have their little sandpit where they can all hold hands and agree with each other all the time.


  159. what does phishing mean?

  160. Ok I was wrong you lot were right Ultima is indeed a lying bitch... I can't actually believe what she's just posted on Ally's thread...

  161. kiz, I've reported it for abuse. I think I'll retain my posting rights for a few more days for this reason only.
    Dot's post has gone.

  162. fuck... they deleted it before I could copy it... damn!

  163. I copied it.

  164. I've still got posting rights and I'm hanging on to see if they do the decent thing... not that I hold out much hope on that score... But I'm certainly not posting again until they do sort it fucking out... and reinstating Jay won't be enough, it's all or nothing, as far as I, personally, am concerned...

  165. You are fab... scherfig...

  166. Kiz, I don't know what phishing means exactly. It's like a spam report I suspect...does anyone know what this means (in general for this site)?

  167. kiz, will post on the other site only if Jay wants to see it. I'm inclined to think 'what's the point?' It's just lies.

  168. Phishing means setting up using spoof URLs to "fish" for unsuspecting customers to click on. Like spelling Barclays.co.uk with the number 1 instead of the letter l.

  169. So why is this site (and Heresycorner) being phished...?

  170. @olching:

    It's not, it's just that anti-virus software can be a little indiscriminating sometimes and misapplies the rules where it's not sure.

    Or something.

    Like I say, "phishing" is normally trying to get people to click on links in emails with bogus (but very close to the original) URLs. Like maybe guardain.co.uk, or NattWest.com or similar.

    You can allow a particular URL by adding it to your "Allowed" list (buried somewhere within your anti-virus s/ware of choice).


  171. geeks are way cool swifty... they know loads of interesting stuff that us fluffy (I mean ME)types haven't got a clue about..
    I wish someone would put an end to this lie that jay ever abused cath personally... It'd have to come from her though before some people would believe it...

  172. Hi kiz

    You are a diamond (and a glamorous one at that). By the way, have you hung up your CiF keyboard? I just have (big loss to the party, I know).

    Having lots of fun chatting away to your mate by the way, she's bonkers! Anyway, what I meant to say the other day was, if you fancy a bit of email chatter rather than via posts like this, she's got my email address, I'd be absolutely delighted to hear from you!


  173. I think I actually got through to the dismal tossers when they emailed me (under my @artpepper monicker) to warn me about 'arguing' with other posters.

    Now this was on the book blogs, which after the Gogarty fiasco was the only section of GU that I posted on and their idea of 'arguing' was what I'd call a robust exchange of views.

    However, I wrote back, pointing out that they advertised their blogs with some phrase like, "The sharpest writing, the wittiest opinions. Join the fray."

    I suggested that they look up 'fray' in the dictionary because it was a bit rich to invite people to 'join the fray' and then tell them off for...erm..joining the fray.

    Shortly afterwards, they changed the wording to read, "Join the conversation." So much more genteel, my dears. I daresay they wanted to provide cucumber sandwiches and scones until the inept tech geeks they employ told them that could be problematic (unlike fucking up the site, which was a doddle).

  174. I'm not posting on a site that keeps banning all my favourite posters... Jay was just the last straw... Disgracy said she'd kept in touch... and I will get yr email off her...I do hope though you'll be kicking around here too though... I certainly will... It's just a bitch I can't get on this site from work...

  175. I think the AllyF thread is rather revealing - asked to provide evidence of my abuse, gilda plucked out this nasty horror - "anything to shut her up!" and BTH went for his usual, a tongue in cheek call for moderation because he said burger flipping is good for the self esteem of disabled people. That is the best of this "nastiest personal abuse" that they have unearthed.

    By all means post ultimas comment either here or in the phonebox, i will make sure i am sitting comfortably, taking deep breaths and with a cup of tea to hand. I am trying to be civil just in case anything can be sorted out with the CiF team but its a little hard when these folk are taking their chance to make things up.

    I wonder also, if ultima emailed cif about the comments on caths blog - she clearly thought i wrote them so she probably did. That might have played a part. If the Graun thought someone was responsible for those comments they would certainly be top of the list for banning.

  176. Kiz/Swifty, whatever you do make sure you still come along to play her at the refugee site.

    Can you not get on here at all from work Kiz? Phonebox?

  177. Also, could someone post link to phone box, i only have it on my work computer

  178. @kiz:

    I'm not posting on a site that publishes shite like this:


    One of the most muddle-headed pieces of boswellox I've ever read (and I've written enough crap myself in my time to know).


    Out of interest, when someone hits the "Report Abuse" button, does that someone's info get back to the poster who made the "abusive" post? Always wondered, because if you're accused of abuse, but aren't told who called you on it...

  179. OK Jay, you asked for it. Who'd have guessed you were scared of her? She has a wee go at Ally too for his personal abuse! Nice.

    "Jay could be insufferably smug and arrogant (as could be said of many of us) and he wasn't always right - but please don't pretend he was personally abusive. That really wasn't his style at all"

    You're wrong about this Ally. I have personally seen Jay mete out very ugly filth against Cath, for example. The comment was immediately deleted so it was not seen by many, but that is the problem with deletions: they erase the evidence.
    It was on one of Cath's blogs long time ago. Up till that I thought like you, but when I saw the filth I realized he was not at all what he claimed to be: an equality-minded person. People like that just do not use that kind of language. He particularly hounded Cath. For my own part I can say he did everything he could to keep me from making a point. He must have been very scared of me. His speech style was also rich in abuse. I know Jay was your buddy ad you enjoy seeing people bullied but you really should be ashamed of yourself, Ally!
    Even you have been personally abusive to me, you called me bitter and twisted, remember? Don't forget things !

  180. @kiz:

    I'm not posting on a site that publishes shite like this:


    One of the most muddle-headed pieces of hand-wringing boswellox I've ever read (and I've written enough crap myself in my time to know).


    Out of interest, when someone hits the "Report Abuse" button, does that someone's info get back to the poster who made the "abusive" post? Always wondered, because if you're accused of abuse, but aren't told who called you on it...

  181. Huh, double post. Apologies.

    NotSoGeekyBoy, obviously.

  182. pen's posting some mental stuff on the talk thread... v funny... I think anybody still posting should endorse atomboy's idea for a general amnesty...

  183. Oooh I've just noticed bru's in the followers... Bru if you see this... send an email to wildhack and she can invite you to contribute... I still want that jewellry thread... something nice and girly...

  184. I wonder if Cath Elliott would do an old adversary a favour and just clarify with Ultima and the Guardian team that the abuse she quotes on her blog was most certainly not from me, and i have in fact previously defended cath when those sorts of comments have been made. I dont think this is ultima lying, she says it with such vitriol that she must really believe i said those things.

    (Swifty - you never find out who reports abuse - i would, if it were up to me, change that to stop overzealous posters using the button as their own personal tool of censorship)

    I know we went to efforts to explain her error to her a little while ago, apparently she either didnt read it or ignored it.

    I am still slightly taken aback by the handful of comments praising my ban. Even considering ultimas prolongued smear campaign against me consisting of malicious falsehoods i still wouldnt want her banned and would be completely ashamed to be seen praising the banning of another poster, even ultima or BTH. Its only a forum but the principle of free speech is about the most important we have.

    Some people on cif wouldnt know a principle if it slapped them in the face.

  185. "Cannot believe AllyF is trying to claim Jay Reilly was never abusive!"

    Varisbird, Allyfs thread. Someone do an old boy a favour and just politely ask for some examples.

  186. Jay, here you go.


    btw, I think that varisbird is actually utima.

  187. @Jay:

    Re. abuse - yeah, that's what I suspected. What a rubbish system.

    As far as CiF goes, I think that the people who commission articles for it are actually clever people, to be honest. They're very, very good at finding authors whose pieces neatly fracture along certain "hot button" fault lines and polarise their readers. The greater the howls of outrage (I know I'm as guilty of anyone), the more they like it.

  188. I would have continued posting, jay, for the next few days or till the mod thread but when Seaton came on the talk thread going on about 'vile language' and 'civilised discourse' I knew there was no point... Civilised discourse? When Tony fucking really is a complete and utter cunt of a war criminal Blair is invited to write for cif?
    The thing is I think Seaton really does just want cif to have rightwing nutjobs (for arguments sake) and the terminally bland... nothing too incisive or challenging and definitely not uncouth... What would Islington say?
    Did anyone see the Leith thread yesterday... What a fucking joke!

  189. Scherfig
    Well at least these threads aren't going to get dragged down into groupthink... ;-}

    To be honest Ultima can misinterpret and misrepresent two by two. A few other posters do that too. I'm not sure if it's particulalry really conscious or malicious in that I think she's thick as shit. I mean, just sharp as a kettle. So it doesn' really feel personal with her... I never really saw much point in engaging with her after the first thread or two. Felt a bit like arguing with the hoover. I'd get very wound up and yet bored at the same time...

    Most of the time I think Cath's pretty down to earth, solid, but has (or used to have) a habit of saying the same thing over and over. And she *always* sides with the sistahs, no matter how obviously spacebats their argument... old fashioned solidarity I guess. AllyF usually rocks up tho, and it gets pretty amusing between those two so I tend to sit back and STFU (rare, but it can happen...)

    I think I missed this legendary thread you had the kerfuffle on so can't really comment.

    Want to know my fave feminist poster ? Princesschipchops. Brain the size of a planet. Sarka also posts brilliantly on wimmins stuff, but in a perhaps less politically aligned way. Always worth a read. And makes me a bit less shouty.

    No, went straight to bed. might be out to play tonight though.. heh heh ;-)

  190. @kiz: You said:

    "The thing is I think Seaton really does just want cif to have rightwing nutjobs (for arguments sake) and the terminally bland..."

    Yep, it sadly looks like there's a policy of stirring up controversy over there. I was wondering why complete fucktards like that bloke going on about his crackpot pet theories about race (which I think his crackpot pet probably did make up to be honest) don't get deleted, but looking at it from GMG's point of view, I guess it serves 2 purposes - to point at said fucktard and say "how horrid", but also to get people with a more nuanced view on life utterly utterly furious. And clicking away and increasing the page impression count so the online ad sales team can sell more ads. Kerrching!

  191. *snip from Ally's thread before it disappears*

    01 May 09, 2:02pm (2 minutes ago)
    This post will be deleted and I'll be banned for this, but if JayReilly can be banned despite being one of the most consistent, intelligent and reasonable posters on here (most of the time) then the CIF moderation policy is officially a joke and I really don't give a flying fuck.

    Ultimahule - you are a fucking disgrace. A fantasist, hypocritical, blinkered moron spouting bile and acting like your retarded opinions make you superior to everyone on here. Everyone who doesn't agree with you, of course. it's like a little club of psychos hanging out, talking SHITE and then congratulating each other. you make me fucking sick.

  192. Part of the problem with many comments over on CiF is some work in favour of what they stand for and some do the opposite.

    Having some retard from Combat 18 posting 'facts' about race ("send 'em back 'ome! The're all scam!") probably does more damage to the extreme right than it does to weaken the views of the left. But arguing with somebody who is both smart and articulate is a real challenge and might actually win over those who are on the fence.

    That's why I think so many of those twits on CiF are jumping with joy and posturing like they own the place, simply because they're relieved.

    I remember posting over on the now defunct Ms Magazine forums (and that place made Cath's blog look like a batchelor party at the Playboy Mansion). There was a lot of hate there (I was referred to once as a potential rapist) and some outrageous statements. The men who dared to post there were either sycophants who they tolerated or scum like me. I got banned (after 30 or so posts) and a few months later the forum disappeared. Word was that it was actually effecting the sale of the magazine due to the number of psycho feminists on their forum souting hate.

    Not quite the same as the Guardian, but just thought I'd share.

  193. Thanks thaumaturge, appreciated.

    Bitterweed - there is no point talking to Ultima, i know, i just cant help myself. I would sometimes ignore her in the interests of decency but after a particular incident a little while ago all that changed and these days i struggle to hold back.

    This mod thread will be very interesting, i hope it doesnt get delayed because of all this.

    Why is sarka never over here? Havent seen much of her lately.

  194. @thaumaturge:

    I've always wondered about our Finnish friend. I'll say this for her/him - he/she at least demonstrates it's possible to have an enormous superiority complex and a deeply-held sense of being perpetually victimsed, at the same time.

  195. I owe this OneinTen a drink or two, quality retort (not that i condone such language, of course..)

    The most amazing thing about Ultima is how little she is modded, and the fact she has never once been premodded, does she own GMG or something?