The JC's blogs, comments and bans


By Stephen Pollard
October 8, 2010
Share

A number of bloggers have asked in recent posts if I
could explain our policy in relation to moderation, and what – and what not –
we consider acceptable.

Let me try to give some context. We have two aims, which
are in a sense irreconcilable. The tension emerges when we try to reconcile
them.

First, we want to encourage as many people as possible to
set up their own blogs and to use the JC’s site as a forum for debate and
discussion – in fact for whatever purpose people want.

The same goes for comments. We want people to feel that
they can leave comments and engage in debate.

It’s in the nature of blogging that posts, and comments,
can be somewhat blunt. That’s fine. We want passion to be stirred.

Sometimes, however, a line is crossed. Some commenters go
too far, and are so abusive and intemperate that they make sites unpleasant for
others to read, let alone join in.  The
JC does not ‘publish’ any of the blogs on our site, other than those written by
JC staff. We simply host them.  That’s
the law, and it’s very important that that is clear.

But as host, we are not willing to allow our facilities
to be abused. That’s why we have banned some commenters and bloggers.

In the end, it’s up to us at the JC to decide when that
line is crossed. Others might disagree with our view, but we host the blogs and
it’s our decision. No one is guaranteed a right to post on a JC blog – or
anywhere else, for that matter.

Others might not agree with such decisions. That’s their
right. But it is our right – and duty - to make the decision.

That brings me to the second aim, where more difficult
issues arise, and the tension sometimes emerges.

We are a Jewish newspaper. In a sea of media bias against
Israel,
our newspaper provides a space where the facts can be reported and commented on
without that bias. Yes, we make sure that the paper is balanced – we have, for
instance, a Palestinian stringer in Gaza who is
a regular contributor - but our stance is clear: we are proud to be an
independent voice for Israel.

Blogging is not – cannot be – the same. We could,
perhaps, impose some sort of theoretical rule that all contributors must be
‘pro-Israel’, and not allow any anti-Israel comments on pieces. Clearly, that
is what many of our posters think, and it’s understandable. How, they ask,
could the Jewish Chronicle, of all hosts, allow anti-Israel comments on its
blog?

But I believe that imposing such a rule would undermine
one of the core purposes of blogging – to foster debate. It would also be
preposterous: Who is to define the criteria? Is urging talks with Hamas of
itself anti-Israel? Should we allow the BNP to blog because it claims to
support Israel?

It is impossible to make hard and fast rules that would
work. In the end, we have to take the decision as to what is, and what is not,
an acceptable viewpoint for us to host on our site. You won’t always agree with
us, but we try to remain committed to the principle of allowing people who want
to set up a blog to do so, and allowing people who wants to comment to do so.

Up to a point. Where an individual or group is, in our
view, not offering constructive and thoughtful criticism of Israel but
out-and-out anti-Israel bile, then we will refuse to host it.

Similarly, when we consider them to be far from the terms
of civilised debate, then we will not allow them to take advantage of the JC’s
facilities.

We recently banned a blogger from the ISM for just that
reason – as we would a BNP member or a supporter of terrorism or violence
against Israel.
Similarly, when we consider a blogger is using antisemitic language or
arguments which use antisemitic themes, we will bar them.

But much as I and many other JC readers consider members
of a group such as Jews for Justice for Palestinians to be contemptible, and
view with disgust their support for a boycott, I do not consider that barring
them from posting is a sensible response. Better, surely, to destroy their
arguments in debate.

Others may not like this approach, and may feel that the
JC’s blog pages should be reserved solely for pro-Israel posters, but I hope I
have explained our rationale in taking a different view. That means that there
will be bloggers who are anti-Israel.

Some of our bloggers are angered by this, feeling that it
is not right for a Jewish newspaper to allow any anti-Israel posts.

I have two points in response. First, the JC’s blogging
facilities are not the same as the paper, either legally, technically or in
spirit. As editor of the paper, I am entirely responsible for what appears in
the paper. As a company, neither the JC nor any of its staff are in any way
responsible for what is written by bloggers and commenters. We simply throw
open our facilities for you to use. That’s the essence of the internet and of
blogging and what differentiates it from newspaper publishing.

But there is a more fundamental point. Many JC readers –
me included – get extremely exercised by sites such as the Guardian’s Comment
is Free. In the end, it’s their property to do with as they wish, and if they
wish to be biased against Israel,
it’s their right in a free society.

But we can’t on the one hand urge them to allow other
points of view, and then argue that blogs and comments hosted on the JC’s url
should be exclusively pro-Israel.

When anti-Israel posts are published, the point of
comments is to subject them to proper scrutiny. That is the sensible approach.

As a gesture, after this post we have decided to wipe the
slate clean. From today, those who have been banned for incivility and abuse
will be allowed again to post. (We will maintain our bans on those bloggers
whose comments and posts we consider crossed the line of anti-Israel
commentary.)

But we will make no apology for cracking down, as before,
on commenters and bloggers who we consider are abusing the freedom our
facilities offer them.  If those who have
been banned carry on as before, they will be banned again.

But I want to end on a positive note. Our website has
gone from strength to strength in recent months. Our hits have increased
exponentially, and we are confident that we’ll reach our initial target of a
million a month. Blogging is at the centre of that, so we want to do everything
we can to make the blogs as welcoming and important a read as they can be. That
they are almost always just that it thanks to you, our bloggers and commenters.

COMMENTS

Yvetta

Fri, 10/08/2010 - 10:13

Rate this:

1 point

Commentators, Stephen - not commentaters.


telegramsam

Fri, 10/08/2010 - 10:21

Rate this:

-1 points

maybe he meant common taters, Yvetta. Like those you get in the greengrocer's. Blessed are the Cheesemakers.


Yvetta

Fri, 10/08/2010 - 10:30

Rate this:

1 point

Yes, I'm sorry - just an old pedagogic proofreader, me.
Surrounded by stacks of proofreading at the moment - picking up typos is a Pavlovian response.
Except when they're my own - on here. Then I blame my hyperactive keyboard ;~)
If this new policy heralds the return of Avraham, then joy!!!


Isca Stieglitz

Fri, 10/08/2010 - 10:38

Rate this:

1 point

Seems a perfectly reasonable and fair stance to me.
Thanks Stephen.


mattpryor

Fri, 10/08/2010 - 10:45

Rate this:

1 point

Thanks Stephen, this sounds like a fair and reasonable policy.


Jon_i_Cohen

Fri, 10/08/2010 - 11:25

Rate this:

1 point

Thank you Stephen for your detailed clarification of your web site policy.
You will not be surprised when I say that I do not agree with you; I believe that there is a plethora of other web forums for our anti-Israel "friends" to be blogging on - and I include the useful idiots of JFJFP.
Nevertheless,as you point out,this is a free society and it is my right to disagree.


Jonathan Hoffman

Fri, 10/08/2010 - 12:46

Rate this:

1 point

Seems entirely reasonable

Let battle recommence ...


happygoldfish

Fri, 10/08/2010 - 13:17

Rate this:

-1 points

thankyou, stephen, for clarifying thejc's freedom-of-expression policy

may i suggest that a brief summary of "rules for bloggers" be permanently displayed, clickable from a link near the top of every blog page (or next to the comment box)?

and also that moderators should give a brief reason when either deleting part of a comment, or closing a blog (the power of closing blogs appears to be applied inconsistently at present)? knowing the reason would help to make the blogs self-regulating … if the usual suspects know why posts are deleted, they'll usually avoid making such posts

(perhaps thejc should also adopt a system of (private) warnings, with "infraction points" totting up towards temporary bans, as on other sites?)

may i suggest that the rules particularly deal with the following topics? …

personal abuse

there is a lot of this (unfortunately, almost entirely from pro-israel contributors) … it gives a very bad impression, both of the jc and of israel's case generally, and i am sure that a lot of readers are put off by it

i suspect also that most would-be commenters are put off by the prospect of abuse, leaving mostly the more extreme or thick-skinned commenters

i urge thejc to adopt and publish a zero-tolerance policy towards personal abuse, deleting it as soon as it occurs …

that should not stifle legitimate criticism … personal abuse should not include "you are lying about this fact", but should include "you are a liar" … it should not include "your statement is racist", but should include "you are a racist" … and it should include "why are you writing on this website?"

repetitive baiting

some blogs are almost taken over by the same one or two people repeatedly baiting someone (usually by insisting on answering some off-topic question)

attempted unmasking

internet usage generally respects the right to anonymity of bloggers … it is bad for thejc's image to appear not to respect this … attempts at unmasking should be deleted immediately

going off-topic

obviously, a certain amount of latitude must be accepted, but some commenters go completely off-topic (sometimes deliberately hijacking the blog, sometimes not), and i suggest such comments should either be deleted or (preferably) hived off to a new blog or thread (easier to do with threads than with blogs, of course)

navigation

there's no index, no way of subscribing to a blog, and no way of telling which blogs have been updated (except for the last 5 comments on the whole site)

a good blog will completely disappear if nobody comments on it quickly

(as a result, we have virtually no "normal" member blogs, of the "funny thing happened to me today" type )

thejc should copy other forum sites, with a proper index, email notification of new posts, number of views, links to similar blogs, etc (and preferably with bb code instead of html)

thejc forums

on any similar site, most of thejc's member blogs would be threads, not blogs

the only forums provided are football (very popular!), film festival, and local forums (very unpopular!)

thejc should create new categories of forum, to absorb most of the present member-blogs (and a feedback-and-announcements forum also, for threads like this one), with a policy of moving a member's blog onto the forums if appropriate

more information about formatting options

the clickable link with this title (above the "post comment" button) leads to a page with nothing on it except "Lines and paragraphs are automatically recognized. The <br /> line break, <p> paragraph and </p> close paragraph tags are inserted automatically. If paragraphs are not recognized simply add a couple blank lines. Allowed HTML tags: <p> <a> <b> <i> <u> <p> <h4> <ul> <li> <big> <div> <cite> <em> <strong> <br> <br/> <table> <tr> <td> <blockquote> <small> <fieldset> <legend> <h6> <span> <img>"

many commenters do not even know how to use "blockquote", which can make their comments a little difficult to follow

may i suggest some more informative information, perhaps along the lines of my own goldfishy guide?

preview and editing

either a preview faclility or an edit-window wold be very useful (many internet forums allow eg a 3-minute window for editing a comment, long enough to correct spelling mistakes etc, but not long enouogh to allow the commenter to react to criticism)

(oh, and removal of the present eternal edit-window for the original blog and its title)

hmm … sorry it's so long


telegramsam

Fri, 10/08/2010 - 13:53

Rate this:

-2 points

Thanks Stephen. Next time abuse is hurled, I'll point to your post. Also, given the correction in today's paper regarding alleged witness intimidation, you and your staff might want to look at libellous claims made on the web, too. One cannot, as has been done elsewhere here, claim someone is guilty of an offence for which they have been acquitted.

Jonathan Hoffman

7 October, 2010 - 19:04

Rate this:
0 points

Amber

There will be no retrial. Once acquitted, criminals stay acquitted, even if it is obvious to all and sundry that they are guilty - as in this case.

Other than that, I agree with Goldfish. Again.


yankeeuxb (not verified)

Fri, 10/08/2010 - 13:54

Rate this:

-4 points

I agree with happygoldfish - the slander and abuse comes disproportionatly from the pro occupation 'group'.

I also agree with happygoldfish : 'i urge thejc to adopt and publish a zero-tolerance policy towards personal abuse, deleting it as soon as it occurs'

Look at my blogs for example and look at the slander aimed at me for expressing my opinion that is pro Palestinian rights and NOT anti Israel.

I agree with the tone of Mr Pollard's blog except some points that made me guffaw i.e

We are a Jewish newspaper. In a sea of media bias against
Israel,
our newspaper provides a space where the facts can be reported and commented on
without that bias. Yes, we make sure that the paper is balanced – we have, for
instance, a Palestinian stringer in Gaza who is
a regular contributor - but our stance is clear: we are proud to be an
independent voice for Israel.

The JC is neither 'balanced' or 'independent' and nor does it report 'facts'
And where is this 'sea of media bias against
Israel?'

Its contempt (as admitted by Mr Pollard) for, for example JFJFP and JStreet, and for the lives of killed activists is blatant.

By all means make blogs 'free' and that is commendable but please don't pretent to be an impartial news paper.

And attempting to compare the ISM with the BNP is pretty lame also.


Yvetta

Fri, 10/08/2010 - 14:01

Rate this:

5 points

attempted unmasking

internet usage generally respects the right to anonymity of bloggers … it is bad for thejc's image to appear not to respect this … attempts at unmasking should be deleted immediatel

Which is why I've just requested a post that suggests what my real name is to be struck from the record by slagging it as offensive


Yvetta

Fri, 10/08/2010 - 14:03

Rate this:

1 point

Ha! I meant flagging. Freudian slip, maybe.


yankeeuxb (not verified)

Fri, 10/08/2010 - 14:51

Rate this:

-3 points

Pro occupation is referring to those who excuse the occupation and the seige.

It does not mean that I support acts of terror, be they Israeli or Palestinian and I beleive that israel has the right to security and peace.

But it is also about Palestinian's security. They are the ones who are occupied or under seige. They are also the ones whoses homes are bulldosed and are subjected to missile attacks and incursions. When will you start to speak about their security or their option for peace. They are occupied so they can only make peace when the occupation and seige is lifted. And the illegal settlement building stops - as supported by the President of the US, our Primeminister, the EU, the UN etcetera, etcetera.

And my opinion is not unique and neither is it 'off the scale', it's shared by many others.


mattpryor

Fri, 10/08/2010 - 14:59

Rate this:

2 points

Yankeeuxb how would you like to be labelled as the "pro-terrorists"?

"pro-occupation" is just as offensive.

Stop being a twat.


happygoldfish

Fri, 10/08/2010 - 15:09

Rate this:

-2 points

stephen, it's happening again!!

jon i cohen has hijacked the blog onto a "pro-occupation" theme … already two other members have (reasonably) followed him, and very likely more will do so

(in addition, he was guilty of attempted unmasking, and suggesting a member should not be here)

if he was banned for a few days, that might deter him and others in future, and help keep this blog on-topic


raycook

Fri, 10/08/2010 - 15:17

Rate this:

5 points

Thanks SP for the clarification.

I can't see how you can claim that the JC is not publishing these blogs when clearly it is providing a space on its website for them. In the modern world, that IS publishing and if you retain editorial control in the form of moderators, then that is definitely 'publishing'.

The high rankings afforded the JC in Google means that any post, pro or anti-Israel, is immediately visible.

It's an interesting parallel with the State of Israel itself that the freedom of the press there allows outrageous bias on the Left and the Right. So here, the JC in its liberal, free press stance, allows reasoned debate to co-exist with demonisation and obsessive anti-Israel rhetoric.

Thus the Blogs, in microcosm, represent the current debate. Those who are generally pro-Israel find little or no space to be critical of Israel because that space is completely taken up by a group who only see the negatives of Israel and never the positives.

Such is the modern world of citizen journalism.

We knock heads incessantly and neither side budges one inch. Good fun though, innit?

Thanks SP and the JC for providing us with this forum.


telegramsam

Fri, 10/08/2010 - 15:42

Rate this:

0 points

Matt, how on earth can you equate pro-terrorist with pro-occupation, unless you equate the occupation with terrorism?


mattpryor

Fri, 10/08/2010 - 15:53

Rate this:

2 points

Really can't be arsed explaining myself at 5.00 on a Friday afternoon TS. I think you probably know what I meant anyway, you're just being argumentative for the sake of it.

Thanks again Stephen for the clarification.

Shabbat shalom.


Jon_i_Cohen

Fri, 10/08/2010 - 16:18

Rate this:

2 points

Who is "Happy Goldfish"? high time he or she was unmasked!!
Too much of" know-it-all" Gefilte Fish for my liking.


Yvetta

Fri, 10/08/2010 - 16:53

Rate this:

1 point

Re Jon I. Cohen's post of 15:44 - I totally agree with what Jon says.


telegramsam

Fri, 10/08/2010 - 18:47

Rate this:

0 points

No, by pro-occupation it means those Jews and others who believe israel should hold on to the west bank despite the fact that this is demographic suicide. Luckily those who are pro-occupation are a minority in the diaspora.


telegramsam

Fri, 10/08/2010 - 18:49

Rate this:

0 points

I think Jon and Jonathan are looking to be martyred by being suspended for bring abusive.


DeborahMaccoby

Fri, 10/08/2010 - 21:52

Rate this:

-1 points

I must protest against the banning of Joe from ISM. There is no evidence at all that ISM is linked to terrorism. The JC itself issued an apology and paid £30,000 damages (plus legal costs) when it published a letter accusing an ISM activist of "harbouring suicide bombers". So why does the editor of the JC continue to make these false allegations against ISM? To compare it with the BNP is entirely wrong. Joe should be reinstated.

Deborah


amber

Fri, 10/08/2010 - 22:27

Rate this:

1 point

The ISM is just as bad as the BNP. They deserve each other.


DeborahMaccoby

Sun, 10/10/2010 - 07:15

Rate this:

-2 points

I would also like to make it clear that JfJfP is not anti-Israel. We are opposed to the policies of the Israeli government.

Deborah


Jon_i_Cohen

Sun, 10/10/2010 - 08:54

Rate this:

2 points

By definition and action JFJFP is anti-Israel; you cannot be Pro-Palestinian, (=terrorism), and Pro-Israel, by supporting the Palestinian "cause", (terrorism), in the way that JFJFP does, you are advocating the demises of the State Of Israel.
You should be posting and supporting CiF, not this web-site.


ibrows

Mon, 10/11/2010 - 11:44

Rate this:

0 points

Deborah is right, comments that are critical of Israeli policies are misleadingly assumed to be 'anti-Israel' when generally this is not the case.

I can be critical of British policies in Iraq or Afghanistan without this meaning i am 'anti-British' or attempting to 'de-legitimise Britiain', so why are legitimate criticisms of Israeli policies in the occupied Palestinian territories routinely labelled as 'anti-Israel' - its simply to try and close down these debates, as many on these blogs dont wish to acknowledge the true brutal nature of the Israeli occupation


ibrows

Mon, 10/11/2010 - 11:50

Rate this:

0 points

Jon,

in the real world, which is not one dimensional, you can be Jewish and still acknowledge the suffering of Palestinians. You don't simply have to blindly support every decision by the Israeli government as correct, Bibi is not divinely inspired, he is human, and has made many mistakes.

Criticism does not mean your anti-Israel. Nor is it calling for the demise of Israel, its merely calling for a end to the occupation, and withdrawal to the legal pre-1967 border. This has nothing to do with calling for the demise of Israel. But these illegal activites are not happening within Israeli borders, but occupied territory.


telegramsam

Mon, 10/11/2010 - 13:32

Rate this:

0 points

Stephen, I hope this doesn't mean that the blogs will become less moderated and that those who have been rude and abusive towards JC staff, such as Reiss-the founder of JCWatch's home for the criminally under-medicated-Joshua and BD will be allowed back.


DLeigh-Ellis

Mon, 10/11/2010 - 17:06

Rate this:

0 points

Good post Stephen... It's the venom of some of our regulars that means I sometimes feel it necessary to take a month or so off from this website.

A bit of mutual respect would go a long way towards enhancing the level of debate on these boards.


amber

Mon, 10/11/2010 - 17:39

Rate this:

0 points

Maccoby, can you explain why your horrible organization marches with Hizbollah and Hamas supporters, and other assorted antisemites?

You don't fool anyone for a second. Not only is that organization anti-Israel, it is antisemitic.


DeborahMaccoby

Mon, 10/11/2010 - 21:45

Rate this:

0 points

Thank you, ibrows. I'd like to add that it is perfectly possible to be both pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel. Indeed to support justice for the Palestinians is actually to support Israel. A nation that oppresses another can never itself be free.

I have replied before to amber about the participation of JfJfP in marches protesting about the brutal attacks on Lebanon and Gaza.

Deborah


DeborahMaccoby

Mon, 10/11/2010 - 21:45

Rate this:

0 points

Thank you, ibrows. I'd like to add that it is perfectly possible to be both pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel. Indeed to support justice for the Palestinians is actually to support Israel. A nation that oppresses another can never itself be free.

I have replied before to amber about the participation of JfJfP in marches protesting about the brutal attacks on Lebanon and Gaza.

Deborah


amber

Mon, 10/11/2010 - 21:57

Rate this:

0 points

Er no Maccoby, you haven't. Why do you march with assorted Jew haters?

And another point - you claim to be both pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel. yet all your posts, and the positions of your organization, attack Israel, whilst you do not hold the Palestinian leaderships, whether in the guise of Fatah or Hamas, to the same standards.

Not only is that a double standard, and deeply hypocritical (indeed, ibrows your fellow traveller exclusively attacks Israel, and never ahas anything good to say about any aspect of the country), it is antisemitic. Holding different people to different standards is profoundly racist.


ibrows

Mon, 10/11/2010 - 22:01

Rate this:

0 points

amber

Can you drop this nonsense. You claim that as Deborah allegedly was at a protest which Galloway also attended separately, by your twisted logic this makes Deborah as Hamas supporter and anti-semitic is total nonsense.

Yet simulateously you claim that Jonny being at a protest where the racist EDL attended, as totally fine.

wake up, to your ridiculous double standards, and either say something constructive and new, or don't bother


ibrows

Mon, 10/11/2010 - 22:09

Rate this:

-2 points

I totally agree, Deborah. Clearly many Jews and many Israel's support Israel as a state, yet are critical of its policies. This is not a contradiction in terms, its perfectly normal to be Jewish and also concerned with the suffering of Palestinians.

regarding your comment that 'a nation that oppresses can never be free', i was recently revisiting Aimé Césaire's 'Discourse on Colonialism', which says it all really:

'Colonialisation, I repeat, dehumanises even the most civilised man; that colonial activity, colonial enterprise, colonial conquest, inevitably tends to change him who undertakes it; that the coloniser, who in order to ease his conscience gets into the habit of seeing the other man as an animal, accustoms himself to treating him like an animal, and tends objectively to transform himself into an animal’.


amber

Mon, 10/11/2010 - 22:18

Rate this:

2 points

ibrows, this disgusting organization has marched with supporters of Hizbollah and Hamas - bothm need I remind you, are organizations which not only call for the destruction of Israel, but also for the extermination of every Jew on earth. That a so-called "Jewish" organization marches on demonstrations organized by these very people, i.e. they did not gatecrash a separate demo) is disguting.

I have never had a coherent answer from either you or Maccoby excusing such behaviour. Actively participating on demos with these racists and antisemites is unconscionable.


ibrows

Mon, 10/11/2010 - 22:29

Rate this:

-2 points

Amber

Simply being present at a demo that Galloway also attended does not amount to supporting Hamas, your getting more and more ridiculous. Plus, like i said, if you truly believe your position, then you must also believe Jonny's attendance at a demo where EDL members attended means he supports the EDL??

Let be clear on this, you can't have it both ways


mattpryor

Tue, 10/12/2010 - 09:42

Rate this:

1 point

Deborah:

I would also like to make it clear that JfJfP is not anti-Israel. We are opposed to the policies of the Israeli government.

ANY policies of ANY Israeli government, it seems.

Seems pretty anti-Israel to me.


Rabbi Zvi

Tue, 10/12/2010 - 11:49

Rate this:

1 point

Well that seems NOT to have calmed anything down.

Perhaps when we recognize that we are all Jews and that in a liberal Western society we are all entitled to our own points of view - and that we are all allowed to voice our opinions - we will learn to disagree with ideas online without using ad hominem language. I may disagree with any one of the people above this post intensely but I defend to the death their right to voice their opinion here, as long as it is voiced in a respectful and civilized manner. If you call people names or allege that they are nazis or antisemites it serves no useful purpose other than being offensive.

Just because you cannot see them and speak to them face-to-face (because this is a computer-based discussion) does not mean you should not treat your fellow Jew like a human being. Kindly consider this when you post here; you are only destroying yourself when you attack your fellow in such a personal manner.

This is deliberately not aimed at any individual nor at any political position. Please remember that the vast majority of those posting on this site are Jews, like you, and hope for a peaceful conclusion to the Israel/Arab conflict. They just disagree as to methods of ending that conflict.


Avraham Reiss

Tue, 10/12/2010 - 15:21

Rate this:

1 point

"As a gesture, after this post we have decided to wipe the slate clean. From today, those who have been banned for incivility and abuse will be allowed again to post. (We will maintain our bans on those bloggers whose comments and posts we consider crossed the line of anti-Israel commentary.)"

I fail to understand how the above is reconciled with the following personal attack in this particular blogpost by telegramsam (about whom a reply will be published elsewhere):
[quote]
Stephen, I hope this doesn't mean that the blogs will become less moderated and that those who have been rude and abusive towards JC staff, such as Reiss-the founder of JCWatch's home for the criminally under-medicated-Joshua and BD will be allowed back.
[unquote]

- from which it would appear that abuse of readers is still allowed.


Jabotinsky

Wed, 10/13/2010 - 08:53

Rate this:

2 points

"I fail to understand how the above is reconciled with the following personal attack in this particular blogpost by telegramsam (about whom a reply will be published elsewhere):
[quote]
Stephen, I hope this doesn't mean that the blogs will become less moderated and that those who have been rude and abusive towards JC staff, such as Reiss-the founder of JCWatch's home for the criminally under-medicated-Joshua and BD will be allowed back.
[unquote]"

I agree. Obviously, little has changed.

A few other points:

1) I have never had anything to do with JCWatch, at least before today, on an official or unofficial basis. In fact, I have on a number of occasions criticised their tactics.

2) I was banned from the JC some weeks ago. That ban lasted for the few minutes it took the editor of this newspaper to intervene and reinstate me (something I had actually not requested; I merely was ticked off that I could no longer access the JC website). Normally, I wouldn't have dreamed of revealing this, but, in the circumstances, I imagine few decent people will disagree with my actions.

I did not return because I decided I had much better things to do than argue the toss with the various dyed-in-the-wool anti-Semites and anti-Zionists who infest the Jewish Chronicle website. They are no more amenable to persuasion than the Brownshirts and Blackshirts of the 1930s.

3) As a result of this, I have decided to approach the owner of JCWatch with various conditional offers of support.

4) Some years ago, when Stephen Pollard was one of the main parties engaged in a battle royale with Neil Clark, I took his part. I now very much regret this.


Jabotinsky

Wed, 10/13/2010 - 09:12

Rate this:

0 points

Re my post above, I suppose I should explain that "Jabotinsky" is "Joshua18".


mattpryor

Wed, 10/13/2010 - 09:20

Rate this:

0 points

Nothing has changed, in fact since this post the situation seems to have deteriorated, and the (anonymous) posters that employ these intimidatory tactics cry victimhood at every opportunity.

Vicious personal attacks against individuals with the sole aim of silencing them are NOT acceptable, and people of good will that have been paying attention to these blogs know perfectly well who I am referring to.


amber

Wed, 10/13/2010 - 09:21

Rate this:

0 points

ibrows - it isn't simply being on a demo at which certain supporters of antisemitic movements turn up. The demos were ORGANIZED BY said antisemites.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand? And why do you excuse it?


Yvetta

Wed, 10/13/2010 - 09:23

Rate this:

0 points

Rabbi Zvi, I had been hoping that a person like you would appear here.
I deplore the ad hominem attacks on here, and the vicious threats to post the real names of individuals who chose to remain anonymous for one reason or another.
There is a poster who persists in attempting to "unmask" me despite the fact that I have explained to him privately that I suffered four years of unabated stalking, insult, and threat from an antisemitic Israel-hater; in the end the police had to intervene. I explained that the man in question would discover me and make my life hell all over again were I to become too "conspicuous".
To my horror, the poster in question, while preaching ethics to certain other posters with whom he disagrees, is still misbehaving towards me.
That a fellow-Jew could put another in danger of round-the-clock abuse from a deranged antisemite is incredible. I have appealed to the poster's better nature in vain.


amber

Wed, 10/13/2010 - 09:26

Rate this:

0 points

Yvetta - this individual is acting in a disgusting manner. The JC needs to take action.


telegramsam

Wed, 10/13/2010 - 09:45

Rate this:

0 points

Yes, Amber, the JC needs to take action against those who defame other Jews who see Israel differently from them. It also needs to be wary of those who defame it and its staff in other places. Talk about double standards.


Yvetta

Wed, 10/13/2010 - 09:47

Rate this:

0 points

Amber, the strange thing is that he and I have never had a "falling out" - we disagree politically, but we have never had a slanging match or anything of that sort. I actually thought he was a better person than he would appear to be - he is intelligent, amusing, well-informed in many areas, and I have no personal antipathy towards him. But he must stop this ruthless mean-spirited, contemptible behaviour.


telegramsam

Wed, 10/13/2010 - 09:47

Rate this:

1 point

I am sorry, Yvetta, for any anguished caused. It was wrong of me to "out" you.

POST A COMMENT

You must be logged in to post a comment.

STEPHEN POLLARD ON TWITTER

    LATEST COMMENTS