Cool.

And, by implication, right about Bernard Manning? OK, I’ll accept that

But look at the Apartheid Wall threads, and the disucssion following the Crown Prince of Bahrain speech. These are the sorts of conversations you get at an ultra-Zionist, anti-Muslim site. They’re just not.

And you’re wrong about St. Etienne.

Andrew, I take the point about broadening the subjects. You see, I don’t think the criticisms you make of HP can’t be made of any other blogs, but I guess we tend to focus on the more contentious issues. So for example, show me the political blog where you can get a rational discussion of Israel/Palestine without at least a few loons from both sides of the debate chipping in? I doubt such a place exists, so if your blog carries a disproportionate number of posts about I/P then the result is a idsproportionate amount of threads that become dominated by nutters or implode entirely. For my money, the solution is – as you say – to broaden the topics. I’d rather see that than introduce an unmanageable moderation policy.

BTW, the points about Sunny were mostly to do with anti-Semitic commentary on PP, of which there has been plenty over the years. I won’t take lectures from physicians who themselves are in intensive care, if you catch my drift?

I don’t dispute that there are sane and rational posters at HP, I do particularly like Joe Muggs and Mike S although neither are frequent posters nowdays and ISTR Mike getting nothing but abuse from another poster when he commented there the other day. There are others whom I often disagree with but I still don’t think of as nutters. The reason why people tend to focus on the loons is that they tend to dominate some threads (such as the Eurabia one) and even if there are only a limited number of them they tend to be particularly vocal and drown out the more reasoned posters.
I mentioned Chas N-B because Sy had brought him up but he does obviously represent a certain strand of opinion, the pro-Israel fundamentalists, and he has been granted guest posts so someone at HP must think he’s a sensile chap. As I said before it’s the nature of pieces about Israel/Palestine wherever they appear that they attract extreme elements and given the number of posts you have on the subject nowadays you are bound to get a good few of them, which is a shame because there are others such as S.O. Muffin who have genuinely interesting and enlightening opinions on the subject.
There are certain others who are just plain obnoxious and too often resort to personal abuse. Look at your “Pickled Pollibollocks” post the other day – there is nothing wrong with the kind of criticism you made of Sunny, whether one agrees with it or not, but certain commenters accused him of “objectively supporting vicious and/or murderous racists” and of anti-semitic abuse towards posters at PP, accusations which are both very serious and utterly false. And to be frank this isn’t helped by certain posts which have attacked particular individuals, often pretty insignificant ones, in an overly personal manner. That’s not to say the individuals don’t deserve criticism but it can often turn quite nasty – I mean I think Lauren Booth is a silly woman for example but some of the stick she has received has been very unpleasant. I think that if you managed to rid yourself of a very small number number of commenters (you could start with Morgoth) it would raise the tone a great deal. And broadening the range of subject matter would help as well – perfectly good discussion about healthcare systems today.
And this is meant as constructive criticism, I’m not just having a pop.

Oh, we do, regardless of your wrongheaded stances on Bernard Manning and St Etienne. I was, er, trimming the facts to fit the joke.

That someone like Conor Foley, whatever you think of his alleged “self-aggrandising”, is under sustained personal attack – and not from the lunatic wing – says nothing good about the current culture of HP.

Didn’t we agree more than we disagreed? You may have been objectively pro-Saddam in your opposition to war**, but I always thought of us as, more or less, on the same side.

**Joke! In the name of God it’s a joke!

I’m calling ‘bullshit’ on that one. The person most lilely to do that is ‘Graham’, who:

a – is as far remvoed from the politics of the right-wingnuts as any of us, and
b – posts even less than I do and I’d bet is not even identified by most people as someone who helps to ‘run’ HP.

And you must be using a different name when you comment at HP, yes? I don’t think I’ve ever seen ‘organic cheeseboard’ in the comments.

Just out of interest, which moderately popular political blogs do you think set the benchmark for comments? Everything you’ve said about HP I’ve experienced at CrookedTimber or the rare occasions I’ve gone onto Dsquared’s blog. The difference between places like that – both of which I know are capable of generating great discussions – is that you can be deleted literally for just disagreeing with the editorial line. Apparently, this makes you a troll, see?

..this kinda reinforces my earlier point to OC where he decided to focus on the commnet of a lone nutter to the exclusion of everyone else on a particular thread. You chose to mention CNB, but of course you could have selected anyone else

not really, because the moderates you mention very rarely publish posts on the politics side, and CNB has had a fair few recently and enjoys the explicit, and blanket, support of the person who increasingly seems to run the site on his own, David Toube. And it’s CNB i was referring to about ‘there is no such thing as an illegal settlement’ – and it’s not a quibble over international law. It’s also him i was mentioning, on his blog he specifically says he supports Avigdor Lieberman. for a site which ostensibly opposes fascism to embrace CNB as a contributor says everything, I think. But as i’ve said, that’s the way it’s been going for a while – people are picked up based on one facet of their politics with the rest disregarded, which is something HP leap on when it’s people they dislike.

and just to repeat again – far too much of this is based on personal grievances. The Hasan stuff was only featured because he made Brett Lock and David Toube look stupid.

It’s transparently obvious that this was him lashing out somewhat rather than a sober analysis of what he really believes makes the Quakers tick.

well maybe – but this rather puts paid to the idea that as he’s a lawyer he’d never write anything contentious or libellous, doesn’t it?

But I definitely think some observers are too quick to conflate the comments and the editorial content and focus on the arsehole commenters – of which I accept there are more than a handful – to the exclusion of the many more thoughtful contributors.

I’m not saying that FR or you won’t get a “fuck you” from at least someone if you comment

more or less every time i comment i get a ‘fuck you’, and often an accusation of antisemitism, from the people who run the site, most often David Toube and ‘Lucy lips’ (who again i tihnk is just his alter ego). And the one time I had a sensible conversation on there, the people who run the blog then misrepresented it on another thread, and used this conversation as a stick to beat me with.

so you’ll forgive me if i refrain in future, notwithstanding your claims that there are loads of level-headed people who post on there. there’s only so often people can intentionally misread my posts and call me a cunt in the process before i give up believing the place is a haven for serious debate. I’d believe it was a problem with the commenters and not the people who run the place, if it weren’t for the fact that a lot of the time it is the people who run the site calling me a cunt.

But Joe Muggs writes about music, Mettaculture has, I think, been banned and Mike S is exactly the kind of person who rarely posts there anymore, bar the occasional “my god, has it come to this” laugh at some of the wilder comparisons of fluffy liberals to Adolf Eichmann.

Incidentally, I know little bout CNB except that his Bowen post was scandalously poor. But if he is, as claimed, a supporter of Liebermann he should have no place on your front page.

I’d quibble a bit with this but not too much, but…

I mean the likes of Chas NB undoubtedly hang out at HP because they like it there.

..this kinda reinforces my earlier point to OC where he decided to focus on the commnet of a lone nutter to the exclusion of everyone else on a particular thread. You chose to mention CNB, but of course you could have selected anyone else, including the likes of MikeS, Joe Muggs, mettaculture, and any number of non-foaming at the mouth, lucid, articulate commenters*. But you didn’t, did you?

*CNB is not a foaming at the mouth extremist, but you obviously selected him to make a specific point, and I’m simply saying you could have mentioned any number of people whose politcis are closer to your own. Bloody hell, I don’t there’s an awful lot that separates me and you on the really big issues, is there?

Back to my quibble, it’s that the sort of commenter a blog attracts is as much a function of the comments policy as it is anything else. If you are relatively popular, discuss contentious isuses and pretty much allow anyone to commentate, you’re going to get more than your fair share of loons. I’ve never denied that we do attract some loons; my issue is that you guys make too much of them. They are HP parasites, not our central nervous system.

Oh for Christ sake look at the link FR provides above and read the actual post. The idea that this was an article in which the proposition that the Quakers are anti-Semitic was launched is truly pathetic. DT wasn’t even the bloody author; his comment was an update to the original post and you just have to read the comments to see that most sensible people took DT to task on the “fuck the yids” comment. It’s transparently obvious that this was him lashing out somewhat rather than a sober analysis of what he really believes makes the Quakers tick. As I’ve already said, the follow-up posts clarify this.

As for the end justifying the means – and again without trawling the archives – the Quakers’ defence was that they didn’t realise who they were letting the hall to. They weren’t forced into doing anything by HP; they simply repsonded the right way once they realised FMH was being used to promote Hezbollah. If you have a problem with that decision, you need to take it up with the Quakers.

And you say you are “deleted” rather than trapped in moderation? Since we moved to Wordpress and with the current access rights, the only person who can delete comments is the author of the post. So which author is deleting you? Unless you’re being overtly racist or off-topic, nothing should be getting deleted. It’s kind of the unwritten rule between authors.

also see the horrific stuff under what is ostensibly a good post on nazi analogies today – ‘Islam is genocidal since its inception’ for example.

See, this is exactly my point. You say “for example”. At the time of writing, it’s the ONLY bloody example. Your comment suggest a thread replete with anti-Islam invective. And however much I disagree with the nutter in question, there is nothing inherently racist in that comment (”Muslims are all terrorist” would be different entirely). Don’t get me wrong – I’d bet a penny to a pound that the commenter is a fucking racist, but tha’ts not quite the same thing.

So to be clear, when you say “horrific stuff” and “for example”, you’re talking about one bleedin’ comment. There are a stack of comments in that thread praising Gabriel’s article, yet you want to focus on one nutbar? And I’m the one trying to project a false image of HP?

HP is also now hosting people (as contributors, not commenters) who not only admire Lieberman, who is a fascist, but people who also believe there’s no such thing as an illegal settlement in the West Bank.

The “no such thing” is, I think, an allusion to the stance of *some* people that international law is not as clear cut as others like to make out. But whatever, I can say categorically that the majority of HP authors have been clear that they are AGAINST settlement expoansion in the OCs. Gene included. It may even be all authors, albeit there’s disagreement about how quickly Israel can/should disengage.

For kicks, here is the list of most recent posts at HP:

* Neda Soltan’s Arbayeen
* ‘The fall of the Nazi language’: A response
* Invisible Women
* The fall of the Nazi language
* Laughing at the poor
* Who Supports the Free Market?
* Desperate for health care in the USA
* A Chorus of Singh
* Salman Says…
* Greenslade Nuts Eady
* Cartographer Fox up!
* Publicity for Lubna Hussein
* Two years is a long time in (pickled) politics
* Independent Letters
* Interesting discoveries…

I’m not saying the subject matter is as varied as it oculd be, but it’s hardly the anti-Semitism fixated blog detractors like it claim it is, either.

I odn’t think anyone’s being disingenuous here. Perception is 90% of the truth and all that. But I definitely think some observers are too quick to conflate the comments and the editorial content and focus on the arsehole commenters – of which I accept there are more than a handful – to the exclusion of the many more thoughtful contributors.

I’m not saying that FR or you won’t get a “fuck you” from at least someone if you comment; I’m saying you can ignore the wankers and take things up with the commenters who have more than 2 brain cells to rub together.

And while I have no complaints about HP’s light touch moderation policy and they obviously can’t control who comments there, I think it’s the case with any blog that the kind of people who comment there on a regular basis do reflect on the blog itself and that blogs tend to get the commentariat they deserve. I mean the likes of Chas NB undoubtedly hang out at HP because they like it there.

I’d say it’s closer to 50%. Livingstone, Tutu, Bowen, Lauren Booth, even David Miliban, and those are just the famous people (and Lauren Booth), God knows how many academics etc have been similarly maligned.

There’s a lot to dislike about the manner in which some on the Left elevate Israel to Top Demon. But this blanket criticism of its critics as anti-semitic unless they can point to an equal record of activism re. China/Sudan/Congo stifles intelligent debate. Which means you get left with the nutters. And round and round it goes.

It’s no coincidence you get the commentariat you do (I doubt CiF would get the same free pass for theirs). Four years ago, when I first found HP, it was robustly nu-Lab, fairly centrist, but clearly social democratic (arguments about neocon running dog foreign policy notwithstanding). Gradually the social democratic parts have dwindled into almost nothing and you’re left with tits like Chas Double-Barrel shouting their approval as this week’s designated Jew-hater is hauled into the stocks.

(btw, Rodent is the first I’ve seen complain that most of his comments get stuck in moderation – I’m sure dsquared has said the same somewhere)

I’m glad to see that this myth that our comments boxes are filled with mini-Ann Coulters and not much else has been finally put to bed.

look back about a week to David toube’s thread about Eurabia. I don’t think that ‘myth about your readership’ is anything like as wide of the mark as you think. I’d be seriously worried if a blog I ran attracted so many comment in suport of the idea of eurabia, and so many people who are clearly islamophobes, whose comments are left unmoderated. also see the horrific stuff under what is ostensibly a good post on nazi analogies today – ‘Islam is genocidal since its inception’ for example.

The Quakers thing was an isolated incident of DT losing it with people he expects more from.

for a start, no it wasn’t. and the idea that the result – Quakers tightening their policy on who can hire their hall – justifies the allegation that their guiding principle is ‘fuck the yids’ is utterly abhorrent. it’s pretty worrying that you think the ends justify those kinds of means.

in 90% of cases the subjects are either self-avowed anti-Semites or at least people who flirt so close to it that you wouldn’t normally waste a breath complaining about this were it not for the fact this is happening on HP.

untrue – witness the Caryl Churchill mess. witness counterpunch being called ‘a neo nazi magazine’. and even Sean Wallis who is fairly clearly not an antisemite even if he made a vaguely dodgy-sounding comment. far too many of the 90% you identify are based on faulty logic and questionable readings at best.

HP is also now hosting people (as contributors, not commenters) who not only admire Lieberman, who is a fascist, but people who also believe there’s no such thing as an illegal settlement in the West Bank. I’m not sure that would’ve happened back in the day but these people enjoy widespread support in the comments sections.

The image you are presenting of HP is all well and good, but the facts don’t bear it out. as a moderator, you have influence and could try to sort it out.

Really? I’ve no idea what that’s all about. We get the odd commenter complaining about this, but for the most part, and so long as you avoid the word “monkey” (???), everything’s good.

I liked the “spazzed pigeons pecking each other to death over a pile of sick”, by the way. I might well plagiarise that at some point.

I know what answer to expect, but I can’t understnad why someone like you isn’t in the comments boxes making your case?

I’m not in your comments because only about a tenth of the ones I make get through moderation, and those that do get through generally solicit “Fuck off you fucking nutter” as a response, with no right of reply. I’m a big boy and can take it, but it’s not like I don’t have enough hands-on experience to form an opinion without fighting with your “open comments policy” and your commenters’ “healthy dissent”.

The Quakers thing was an isolated incident of DT losing it with people he expects more from. Surely the salient point is that Quakers responded to our post by tightening their letting policy for the Friends Meeting House? In other words, they admitted they go it wrong when they let out the hall to, effectively, Hezbollah? I literally cannot be arsed to do the search, but there were a couple of follow-up posts where we credited the Quakers for their actions and DavidT did the same.

HP has more posts on an average day than virtually any UK politcal blog I know. The instances where writers come right out and label anyone an anti-Semite or racist or similar are as rare as a clean sheet at White Hart Lane. This probably has something to do with the fact that two of the writers are lawyers as much as anything. I don’t need persuading that there are legitimate criticisms that can be made of some posts – fuck, I’ve made them myself – but why not stick to those legitimate criticism instead of fantastical assertions that our writing is an exercise in flinging the anti-Semite label at everyone who disagrees with us? It’s just bollocks.

Insofar as there are a lot of posts that discuss anti-Semitism, in 90% of cases the subjects are either self-avowed anti-Semites or at least people who flirt so close to it that you wouldn’t normally waste a breath complaining about this were it not for the fact this is happening on HP.

After all, your function at HP these days appears to be Comments Janitor, chasing around blogs mopping up negative reactions to your colleagues’ more objectionable output.

If we were that concerned about criticism of the authors a simple review of our moderations policy would solve that in a stroke. At least there’s an implicit admission here that our comments boxes have a very healthy proportion of dissenting voices. Some of those dissenting voices say things every bit a looney tune as the right-wing reactionaries you love to quote, but somehow these seem to attract less attention than the likes of field, etc.

that you have to do that implies either a) that there are a lot of nutters who just hate HP because we love them Islamists and anti-semites or b) that there is something fundamentally fucked up going on over there on a regular basis.

I don’t *have* to do anything. Even when I was posting, I always commented more than I blogged. I prefer commenting. Sometimes the truth is boring, eh?

But again, I’m glad to see that this myth that our comments boxes are filled with mini-Ann Coulters and not much else has been finally put to bed.

I know what answer to expect, but I can’t understnad why someone like you isn’t in the comments boxes making your case? No-one says you have to engage with regular numpties, but don’t pretend there aren’t some commenters you could get a half decent discussion out of. Same with you, Sy. I’d no doubt disagree with you both on many things, but I’d swap you two for some of the crackpots we have any day. People like Justin and Dsquared, also. Instead of sniping from the sidelines about our comments “cesspit”, why not change the dynamic?

I’m sure this is a waste of keystrokes, but I’d happily grant either of you a guest post to make your case about what’s wrong with HP if you’re up for it?

I don’t accept that HP’s writers – as opposed to too many of its commenters – are Islamophobic. But what FR says here is pretty much undeniable and is for me what makes HP so repellent these days. Its primary purpose seems to be the electric fencing of Israel by smearing its critics as anti-semitic. Obviously Brownie’s exempted from this (and Gene to some extent) since he so rarely posts and even occasionally pops up to take issue with some of David T’s new team of nutters.

Well, you said earlier that calling people Jew-hating racists and such wasn’t David T.’s style, and expressed doubt that any such thing would be said at HP without good reason. When I went to the hassle of tracking down a quote and link to DT repeatedly accusing the Quakers of wishing to “Fuck the yids”, you ignored it.

On the strength of that, could you consider – and that’s “consider”, not “accept” – the possibility that I’m a fairly reasonable person making well-informed judgements based upon what I’ve seen with my own eyes?

After all, your function at HP these days appears to be Comments Janitor, chasing around blogs mopping up negative reactions to your colleagues’ more objectionable output. That you have to do that implies either a) that there are a lot of nutters who just hate HP because we love them Islamists and anti-semites or b) that there is something fundamentally fucked up going on over there on a regular basis.

I realise that you believe option a) is the one, and there sure are plenty of nutters on that internet. OTOH, I’d say b) is bang on the money.

Hasan’s self-styled ‘repsonse’ to the HP posts enjoys the title:

“Who are you calling an Islamist?”

“Who” indeed. Certainly not any of the wrtiers, including ‘C4 Insider’, who in the second of the posts writes:

Hasan is not an Islamist. Indeed, he has clearly written and spoken of his opposition to the idea of an “Islamic State” as well as criticising Wahhabi and Takfiri groups.

The answer to Hasna’s question is, of course, “some bloke in the comments box at HP”.

Job done? Apparently so.