Dogwash

In a comment to an earlier post, Ringmer remarked on the heavy moderation of CiF's "Banardo's are the spawn of the Devil" article. My habit these days is to snapshot CiF threads each time I open or refresh them, which means that with luck I can recover at least some of the comments that the Mod has taken exception to between snapshots. Bear in mind that this is very hit-and-miss.

Here are the deleted comments I managed to recover from the Barnardo's piece:


Most of the excluded comments are ad hominems against BeautifulBurnout. Fair enough in principle, no doubt; ad hominem abuse is surely not to be encouraged in serious high-flown debating circles like CiF. But this is all very mild stuff, part of the rough-and-tumble of vigorous on-line discussion. And it's positively tea and cucumber sandwiches with the vicar in comparison with the sanctimonious self-righteous abuse the woman herself dishes out at the drop of, if not a hat, then certainly a FAS's shredded passport. Or are BB's ad homs, rants and general abuse to be sympathetically overlooked as the understandable exasperation of a Righteous, decent and liberal woman driven to the limits of her patience and beyond by the repetitive baying of fascist morons? Or something.

But ilovemisty's comment at 3:49

UKBA and the courts don't always get it right when they reject people's asylum claims.

We have an asylum system with multiple stages of appeal as you know full well. Are you arguing claims should not be assessed as genuine or not? How long would the system survive without such a process? Lets be a bit more balanced, both UKBA and the courts have also approved a great many asylum applications which where bogus, or allowed false claimants to stay on human rights grounds.

is a perfectly sensible contribution. Were the Mods perhaps incensed at her misspelling of "were"? Or did the Righteous side just not have an answer to the question?