Pathetic: Guardian censors Peter Saunders comment even though the article mentions him.
The Guardian has an article entitled: Anti-abortion bid in disarray as critics rally, in which they seek to identify the organisations that support Nadine Dorries, and how they are funded.
Within the article Peter Saunders is mentioned:
Dorries confirmed that her campaign was being advised by Dr Peter Saunders of the Christian Medical Fellowship, a lobby group which says that more than 4,000 doctors are members, and “a number” of other organisations, including “one that runs crisis pregnancy centres”, but she refused to either name them or describe their role.
Peter sought to post a comment on the Guardian piece last night; however, at 22:50 Peter noted on his blog:
Now 2250 and 138 comments in two hours largely from rabid pro-abortionists but still no sign of mine. Off to bed.
I asked Peter this morning if his comment had now been published and he confirmed to me that:
I have just checked again at 0950. My comments have still not been posted although 343 others have. When I log in there is a note on the page in red to say that my comments are premoderated – so yes this is deliberate censorship of me personally.
Isn’t the Guardian pathetic. I don’t know why their moderation tactics surprise me, as I follow the blog CIFWatch and witness the same behaviour meted out to those who would seek to support Israel.
It’s still unclear as to whether Peter’s comment will eventually be published; even if is, then the delay will ensure that most folk won’t ever read it.
Here is the offending comment lifted from Peter’s blog:
The above article creates the impression that Dorries/Field, by trying to ensure that women get an offer of counseling independent from the publicly-funded abortion industry, would be forcing them out of the ‘market’. The reality is that they already have an unassailable stranglehold on it.
In 1991 the NHS funded 9,197 abortions carried out by the private sector in England and Wales. By 2010 that figure had risen to 111,775 – an increase of over 1100%. In 1991 the NHS funded 10% of abortions carried out by the private sector. By 2010 that figure had risen to 93% – a total of over £60 million of taxpayers money was paid out. The growth of NHS-funded but privately-provided abortions (BPAS/MSI etc) entirely accounted for this increase.
In addition every accredited pregnancy advice bureau is already linked to this industry and advised by the RCOG whose members carry out most abortions.
This sort of monopoly would not be tolerated in any other ‘service’ area but it is precisely this status quo that Cameron under the influence of Clegg/Harris/Unions has sought to cement to the cheers of the Guardian and the criticism of the Telegraph.
How private abortion providers gained a stranglehold on taxpayer-funded abortions under the last government – http://bit.ly/qyc49A
Abortion raises risk of mental health problems by 81% says major new review – http://bit.ly/o9n60U
Amendment giving women option of independent abortion counseling is a step in the right direction – http://bit.ly/pj5D4C
Evan Harris outwits David Cameron in abortion about-face to appease powerful pro-abortion lobby – http://bit.ly/osSU5X
Tags: Law Moral Ethical, Media, Politics, Religion Society, Science & Medical
September 3rd, 2011 at 1:49 pm
Great minds think alike, Stuart!
I think we should encourage everybody to attempt to post Dr Saunders’ post on the Guardian article, to see if they all get banned. I am going to try, but as I have been banned already I will not hold my breath!
September 3rd, 2011 at 1:55 pm
Would very interested to find out if they do let your comment thru.
Thanks for the link by the way, much appreciated.
September 3rd, 2011 at 10:47 pm
Maybe it’s the wrong forum anyway for Pater Saunders to make his point so is perhaps no great loss. There are now 438 comments and counting. I tried scanning through to get a feel for the tone and after a hundred or so realised that any pro-life voice would be totally lost in the overwhelming pro-choice comments. At best the comment would just attract abuse.
I have a feeling it will always be thus. Each side will build up their ramparts and defend their position ever more strenuously. But the majority will probably remain pro-choice.
I admit to being pro-choice myself. Although I admire the tenacity and commitment of the pro-life lobby, I cannot subscribe to it, and it feels from where I stand like a fervent minority trying to impose their will on the majority.
September 3rd, 2011 at 10:49 pm
I’d be surprised if it did get published, but only for the fact that it has 4 links in it.
Most of the places I’ve dared to comment pre-moderate any comments with links, and most of the ones that let links through tend to limit to 3 links. I don’t know what the Guardian policy is though.