Welcome to the age of censorship, as the Guardian shuts down comments on its favourite topics.
The Guardian just admitted they lost the argument. Being reminded of this is just too painful...
As someone has just commented on the Grauniad article:
"In many ways, the Guardian is desperately out of touch with the opinions of people, even of a large fraction of its own readers. Shutting down commentary in an attempt to restrict it to "nice" and "acceptable" opinions that coincide with your own naïve and simplistic view of the world is not likely to help anything."
The Guardian newspaper is increasingly only bought by institutions (universities, the BBC, etc) and old-time readers (usually aged 50+). It will one day die, probably in only a few years time.
I don't know whether we can really say that many CIF commentators these are 'Guardian readers'. Many of them have particularly right-wing views. I recall some months ago many were avidly supporting Marine Le Pen, for example. The exact same people who seem to be very vocal against Guardian opinions on gender, race and religion on CIF are also likely to do a U-Turn if a certain Jeremy Corbyn expressed the same opinion. I remember when Corbyn, for example, posed the idea of gender segregated train carriages. This is an idea that CIF commentators, specifically those that comment on their life and style 'women' articles, would hate if, say Laura Bates posed the idea. Yet, funnily enough, quite a few were very supportive when comrade Jeremy stated it.
The Guardian is probably out touch, but then most newspapers seem to be these days. Most people don't read them, and those that have the time and energy to comment on articles seem to think that said newspaper does not represent their views. I'm thinking of the Mail here, whose online ''readers'' (if they even like the Mail) seemed to think the paper had a huge agenda against UKIP last year. Likewise, this was also the case for Telegraph readers, who probably think that the world is run by cultural Marxists.
I don't spend all day reading them but get the impression both the Telegraph and Guardian get a lot of comments from the "other side", some of whom may be trolls.
(@TSE -- John Cleese's three rules of comedy: no puns; no puns; no puns.)
I saw the David Lammy thing, this morning. The first thing I thought is I wonder what PB thinks of it all....
Less overwhelmingly against than I expected last night. He is not well thought of by most in these parts, but apparently it is a subject he actually knows something about, and it shows Cameron probably wants to actually achieve something by making the review as non partisan as possible.
It's a smart move by the PM, not only makes it nonpartisan but makes it difficult for Labour to shout down when it came from one of their own side.
Andrew Neil Islamic State video threatens Britain with "doomsday" attack to "turn children's hair white (end of days reference)." Be alert, not alarmed
''Even that shows incompetence. Something like "We can't risk staying in the EU" would be much more effective.''
In the Spring, when the next tidal wave of immigrants hits Europe's shores, the news will be doing LEAVE's PR for them.
Look at the many popular sites now, aflame with stories about refugees, and consider that this is the quiet time, the closed season.
I think it speaks volumes when a bunch of migrants drown off the Turkish coast and it barely makes the news. The mood has definitely changed. This summer will be interesting.
The Iowa polls still offer plenty of chance for an upset and while I'm sure the shrewder traders have made sure they are green across the board, it's not a market I'd want to be wading into.
Does Trump need to win Iowa ? Before pulling out of the Fox debate, I'd have said no but having made the grand gesture, failure to win would make that seem like a miscalculation and Fox, who clearly loathe him with a healthy passion (listen to Carl Cameron's reports which are full of anti-Trump jibes) would be all over the winner.
Trump wins and while I don't agree that seals up the nomination, it would provide momentum for the Donald and the beaten candidates would be facing some tough questions going on to NH and SC.
The Democratic race is no less interesting - I agree Hillary won't lose even if she loses IA and NH but to win IA would enable her to write off a Sanders win in NH as a one-off. Sanders would need to win well in both to build anything approaching momentum heading into states like SC where I think he would struggle to get anywhere near Hillary.
Very sad re: Sir Terry Wogan. They used to have the Racing Bulletin during his show with news of inspections and the like and Terry used to grace it with the infamous "Wogan's Winner" though I suspect others had a hand in that as well.
Good interview by Tim Farron just now on Sky News though I'm sure others will say how bad it was.
Spectacular sense of entitlement on display here, you would think there was a legal right to post comments on a private business's web page the way some of you are going on.
Comments
(@TSE -- John Cleese's three rules of comedy: no puns; no puns; no puns.)
New Thread New Thread
Islamic State video threatens Britain with "doomsday" attack to "turn children's hair white (end of days reference)." Be alert, not alarmed
Does Trump need to win Iowa ? Before pulling out of the Fox debate, I'd have said no but having made the grand gesture, failure to win would make that seem like a miscalculation and Fox, who clearly loathe him with a healthy passion (listen to Carl Cameron's reports which are full of anti-Trump jibes) would be all over the winner.
Trump wins and while I don't agree that seals up the nomination, it would provide momentum for the Donald and the beaten candidates would be facing some tough questions going on to NH and SC.
The Democratic race is no less interesting - I agree Hillary won't lose even if she loses IA and NH but to win IA would enable her to write off a Sanders win in NH as a one-off. Sanders would need to win well in both to build anything approaching momentum heading into states like SC where I think he would struggle to get anywhere near Hillary.
Women protesting the forced Hijab in Iran, days after the 1979 Revolution. https://t.co/XlRBPplsOa