With strict English laws on trial by jury (which, btw, the BNP seems not to have grasped), comments on newspaper websites were usually banned prior to today, so that users' opinions would not influence jury members who may be reading the articles. However with today's verdict, the kid gloves were off, and commentary articles were in full swing.
One such article was on Guardian's comment-is-free, promising much hard work for the moderators.
The comments section didn't disappoint - and included this from one user, speculating on a possible source of inspiration for the grooming gangs:
9 May 2012 11:16AM
"Practising Muslims certainly aren't supposed to have sex with children".Mohammed did...
- | Link
Presumably the poster had Mohammed's marriage to Aisha in mind...
One didn't have to wait too long for a response from an "offended" (presumably) Muslim poster:
9 May 2012 11:25AMResponse to hhhmmm, 9 May 2012 11:16AMI've reported this. I hope it gets moderated.
- Recommend? (1)
- Responses (1)
- Report
- | Link
What would the Guardian moderators do? Show some steel? Or bury their heads in the sand, as per the usual? The answer came swiftly - a removal of the "unacceptable" comment. "Mohammed did" now being 2 words banned from the Guardian.
But speculating on another religious figure being gay - Jesus - is a subject perfectly OK for an article in the same newspaper...
This despite the consummation of Mohammed's marriage to Aisha at age 9 being widely-accepted - yet Jesus as a homosexual being a form of speculation highly offensive to most Christians.
Such are the double standards of the newspaper for whom "comment is free... but facts are sacred".
No comments:
Post a comment