Guardian

Why We are So Incensed


For those of you following the William Bapthorpe affair with interest, Mr. “ I want to slaughter Jews” Bapthorpe made an interesting comment about his posting ability (or lack thereof) earlier today.

williambapthorpe’s comment 13 Jan 10, 2:20pm

@JayReilly, did you take your moniker from A Confederacy of Dunces? (Just to show that I know what you’re talking about…) A great novel with a very sad story behind its composition / publication. I had assumed it was your real name. Dunno why, because mine sure as hell isn’t William Bapthorpe.

Anyhoo my comments seem to be taking an age to appear, if at all. Is it this ‘plucking’ business? Anyone else experiencing this? [emphasis added]

How revealing that only now, after more than 80 posts since his now infamous January 6 post, does he complain about the time its taking for his comments to appear. Shouldn’t he have realized by now that for the past week he’s been pre-moderated. At least that was the impression that Matt Seaton chose to give when he said this yesterday:

[r]egarding the post in the Blincoe thread which you respectively have complained about, let me assure you that – contrary to the impression Cif Watch chooses to give – the comment was deleted promptly by moderators, and as per our standard moderation protocol the user has been placed in quarantine as ‘untrusted’.

It seems that Matt is being economical with the truth (and its not the first time) and that in actuality Bapthorpe only went into pre-moderation after CiF Watch published his comment two days ago.

So what conclusions can we infer from this?

Well first, while the moderators on duty deleted Bapthorpe’s post, they clearly didn’t feel that the offensiveness of his post rose to a level that betrayed the “circle of trust”. I would proffer that the reason for this is that the moderators have been exposed to so much demonization of the Israeli “settler” population that they have become completely desensitized to the gravity of calling for their slaughter right down to the “last man, woman and child”.

What is worse though is that this attitude pervades Guardian management. Instead of immediately and permanently banning William Bapthorpe like any self-respecting organization should do, the Guardian has taken the jaw droppingly astonishing (to quote one of our regular readers) step of just pre-moderating Bapthorpe leaving open the possiblity that Bapthorpe may, if he behaves himself in the future (i.e adheres to the Guardian World View), return to the “circle of trust”. And more astonishingly, as I explained yesterday, this step is in contravention of the moderation policy that the Guardian itself holds itself accountable to.

What it boils down to is simply this: while Matt Seaton (and by extension Guardian management) may pay lip service to condemning Bapthorpe’s post, the failure to immediately and permanently ban Bapthorpe sends the message to the Jewish community that anti-Jewish bigots like Bapthorpe are acceptable members of the CiF community.

The inability of Matt Seaton to comprehend the revulsion we feel from this speaks volumes.

23 replies »

  1. I wrote and asked Matt Seaton why William Bapthorpe had not been put into moderation as he had stated had been done, but have as yet received no reply.

  2. ” Mr. “ I want to slaughter Jews” Bapthorpe ”

    A great opportunity has been lost by CIFwatch. The stupid exaggeration of Bagpuss’ comment has robbed this blog of a real opportunity to have a go at the Guardian.

    CIF can look at this and dismiss it as hyperbolic tosh. CIF must be challenged when it singles out Israel violence.. but just when you get a chance to land a blow you punch yourself on the jaw.

    Bagpuss said “settlement dwellers” ..they are “Jews” but you are extrapolating and you cannot do this and expect to be taaken seriously.

    CIFwatch 1 CIF1 …you let them off the hook.

  3. Thanks Hawkeye

    My guess is that WB has some special privilege. Interestingly enough, at the end of the Blincoe thread I posted a response to his post (which was posted to me) about the ethnic cleansing in Palestine. His post still remains while mine was deleted presumably because my post was off topic (as was his off topic). That’s at least two instances where the moderator broke their own guidelines in favor of WB that I’ve noted. The other time was on a different thread (and I haven’t really spent anytime looking).

  4. Abandon dope (Berchy)

    You keep exposing yourself more and more by defending WB. Yesterday, you tried to equate what I said about the assassination of an Iranian Physics professor with WB’s comment, and you made yourself look like an idiot. Go back to CIF now…….

  5. TomWonacott

    “You keep exposing yourself more and more by defending WB.”

    I condemned his brutal and wanton advocacy of violence.I condemned his stupidity . This is defending him? I am sorry you made such a blunder as to be seen in the same light as him but those who kill by the sword…

  6. This has officially put the stamp on CiF as a hate-site. Congratulations, CiF!

    By this the Guardian admits they do not condemn the calling for the murder of children. Calling to slaughter children doesn’t disqualify from being a member of CiF. That’s a very loud and clear message for all of us.

    Is the British far-left completed the full circle to full-blown Fascism? I guess so. They are all “Hammas” now. Good for them. Seaton and his gang are showing us their true colors. And that’s a good thing. No more hiding their real priorities.

  7. Still no reply from Matt Seaton.

    He must be very busy if he can’t take five minutes to write me an email explaining why williambapthorpe was not in pre-moderation as he had told me and Robin Shepherd and presumably others, that he was. If he has lost my email address I will watch this blog as well as Robin Shepherd’s, for his reply.

  8. As well as the obvious lessons about antisemitism and the horrors thereof, this episode is a stark lesson that burying your head in the sand and responding defensively doesn’t work.

  9. Mr. “ I want to slaughter Jews” Bapthorpe

    Good God, what a preposterous way to refer the man.

    @ Margie

    Still no reply from Matt Seaton. He must be very busy if he can’t take five minutes to write me an email

    Who do you think you are? Do you expect him to answer every one of the barrage of mails he’s been receiving? The man has better things to do.

    Get off your high horse and get real.

  10. Berchamns – why are you conflating Bagpuss with WilliamBapthorpe – surely you are not suggesting they are one and the same?

  11. I have written here about The Brainwashing of Britain regarding Israel, and the Guardian’s role in promoting every negative angle about Israel it can find.

    We now have two stunning examples associated with the Guardian in a very short space of time – Michael White, a Guardian editor, who tossed out the infamous phrase “of course, in Israel they murder each other a lot”, and WB’s infamous call for the slaughter of every Jewish man, woman and child on the West Bank.

    Little further proof is needed, in my opinion, of what is happening in Britain, and the Guardian’s central role in this developing frenzy of hatred towards Israel. However, I am sure that in short order more will be provided, because this has become the Guardian’s World View, its weltanshaung, and it can no more avoid these kinds of comments by its staff, contributors, and commenters than a leopard can change its spots.

    Surely some governmental body in England needs to start examining what is going on at the Guardian. Britain, I understand, has laws against hate speech, and has even proscribed certain groups, such as the one that tried to march recently, Islam4uk.

    Its time to pull back the covers at the Guardian and take a look at what is lurking beneath.

  12. pretzelberg

    — Mr. “ I want to slaughter Jews” Bapthorpe

    “Good God, what a preposterous way to refer the man.”

    If you have a better middle name for him, let’s hear it. By the way, what was exactly preposterous in that? Baptwirp WROTE he wanted Israeli settlers to be slaughtered.
    Why must you always take an affected, self-righteous stance on everything?

    “Do you expect him to answer every one of the barrage of mails he’s been receiving? The man has better things to do.”

    You have some nerve. The guy has been lying through his teeth and you defend him.

    NO, he has NO better things to do that to explain why is the website under his editing allowing incitement to violence to continue and refusing to enforce their own policies discriminately.

  13. Pretzelberg –
    Margie

    Still no reply from Matt Seaton. He must be very busy if he can’t take five minutes to write me an email

    Who do you think you are? Do you expect him to answer every one of the barrage of mails he’s been receiving? The man has better things to do.

    Get off your high horse and get real.
    ————-
    He sent five other emails addressed to my high horse before this one. He really isn’t that busy or important – though from where you are it may seem to you that he is. 🙂

  14. “The man has better things to do.”

    Like facilitating more racist online bullying and then throwing his toys out of the pram if anyone dares complain.

  15. Smirking Seaton doesn’t give a rats for the few marsh mellows that were and are being thrown at him,what is needed is at the first opportunity to haul in front of the courts.Sooner or later he will stuff up.

  16. CommentisFilth and others, ignore pretzelberg! His sort attention-seeking is passive-aggressive and he probably gets off on it. The best antidote is to refuse to give him the attention he so desperately needs. I wonder, though, how he knows about the “barrage of emails” to Seaton. Perhaps he has an “in” at CiF which is why the best he can do are flag waving attempts at criticising them.

    “…I would proffer that the reason for this is that the moderators have been exposed to so much demonization of the Israeli “settler” population that they have become completely desensitized to the gravity of calling for their slaughter right down to the “last man, woman and child”…

    I think you are letting them off the hook far too easily, although it’s easy to see why you think this. I would dearly love to know the make-up of the moderation team and, given their glaringly inept performance so far, we also need to have some ideas about their political inclinations too before we can agree with Seaton that they are not biased. Seaton wouldn’t know anti-Israel bias if it kissed him on both cheeks.

  17. smirkingseaton, you are right. Seaton is quite remarkably smug. One wonders if this smugness would be maintained after a few days on remand, say, in the showers at HMP Barlinnie.

  18. Like TomWonacott, I believe that Bapthorpe, and Berchmans, LaRit, the Pappe groupie Pappalagi and Moron are “Friends of Georgina” and are in the charmed circle which protects them from being banned.

    Why is this:

    I can’t imagine berchmans being in a charmed anything but perhaps he has something on “gentle” Georgina or is the CiF representative of the Scottish branch of the ISM. He’s probably on a mission to annoy us.

    I honestly believe that Bapthorpe is related either to one of the Guardian staff or one of the mods. I wish we could find out. Has anyone any ideas?

    LaRit and the others are just padding who post rubbish and get results (by which I mean hits to the threads).

    All of which begs the question of why we continue to play with them….

  19. @ Mitnaged

    As you clearly have no idea what “passive-aggressive” means I would suggest you refrain from throwing the word about with such abandon.

    p.s. That’s an entertaining paranoid conspiracy theory there about me having someone inside CiF!

  20. Seaton’s capability to lie to himself and therefore to everyone else is rather disturbing. I believe it to be evidence of hostility (to reality) in the Personal Construct sense:

    Hostility (also called inimicality) is a form of angry internal rejection or denial in psychology. It is a part of personal construct psychology, developed by George Kelly. In everyday speech it is more commonly used as a synonym for anger and aggression.

    In psychological terms, Kelly defined hostility as the willful refusal to accept evidence that one’s perceptions of the world are wrong. Instead of reconsidering, the hostile person attempts to force or coerce the world to fit their view, even if this is a forlorn hope, and however harmful the cost. (As regards Seaton and the coven they lie through their teeth).

    While testing theories against reality is a necessary part of life, and persistence in the face of failure is often a necessary part of invention or discovery, in the case of hostility there is the distinction that the evidence is not assessed and a decision made to try again.

    Instead the evidence is suppressed or denied, and deleted from awareness – the unfavourable evidence which might suggest a prior belief is flawed is instead ignored and wilfully avoided. Psychologically, it can be said that reality is being held for ransom, and in this sense hostility is a form of psychological extortion – an attempt to force reality to produce the desired feedback, in order that preconceptions become validated. In this sense, hostility is a response that forms part of discounting of unwanted cognitive dissonance.

    Look at the flowery language Seaton uses to describe the grades of moderation in order make them sound “official” abd him seem to know what he is talking about, and to try to wriggle of the hook of criticism. He is hoping to smokescreen his way through with stupidities like “circle of trust” and such like.

    CiF’s bible – “Community standards and participation guidelines:
    10 guidelines which we expect all participants in guardian.co.uk’s community areas to abide by” is full of such sweet-talking nonsense. We learn that posters can be banned if their offence is “serious” but given that most of the language employed by the Henry coven would be more fitting if spoken by Humpty Dumpty in “Through the Looking Glass” who decides what is “serious?” (We should not forget that the coven breaks its own rules here and then ties itself in hysterical knots trying to excuse itself – remember Georgina Henry’s mind-boggling attempt to excuse the “ethical cretins” remark?).

    Looking at all this one can be forgiven for assuming that “serious” varies according to whether there in an “r” in the month, or whether Arsenal is playing at home, or even whether berchmans reported the post, but all this, added to the nonsensical decision-making by the moderators, means that we get a cumulative error of such proportions that CiF cannot help but reveal its underlying racism and bias.

    When confronted by that, however, Seaton can’t cope. He is unable to give a straight answer to the question of whether incitement to murder Jews (which is a crime in the UK) is “serious” enough to get a poster permanently banned. Instead he gets bogged down in ridiculous explanations about “trusted” and “untrusted circles” of posters.

    CiF is now officially a Jew-haters paradise.

  21. Mitnaged, you are right. If you can call for the murder of Jewish children and still not be banned, then what level of depravity qualifies for any serious kind of reprimand by cif moderators?