I’ve recently had a lengthy series of emails with a supporter who lives in the West Country. He claims quite extraordinary abuses of father’s rights by feminist social workers at his local council’s children’s services department, a story we hope to report in detail one day, but can’t at the present time.
The man reports that the Dorset Echo routinely follows feminist narratives without criticism, and rarely shows any interests in abuses of men’s rights. This is no different from the vast majority of the press media and mainstream online media, it has to be said. But what intrigued me was that for the past two years he’s been posting inoffensive comments – inoffensive to normal intelligent people, not hate-driven gender feminists – following pieces in the online edition of the paper, and they’ve routinely been deleted, and his account blocked. The extent of censorship of his comments is extraordinary.
He’s been forced to comment using dozens of pseudonyms because of the constant censorship and account deletions. Examples of comments being deleted include those with links to information and statistics about domestic violence which prove gender feminist narratives since the early 1970s to be variously conspiracy theories, fantasies, lies, delusions and myths. They include links to materials produced by such internationally renowned figures as ManWomanMyth and Erin Pizzey. At the same time comments left by gender feminists, some of them blatantly anti-male, aren’t removed.
Our supporter suggested it might be worth linking to the ‘Reclaim the Night’ article he was deleted from. In his comments he pointing out that the event was effectively calling all men potential rapists and violent, while men were barred from the event, and money only given to women’s refuges:
Our supporter invites other men’s human rights advocates (MHRAs) to join him in monitoring and rebutting feminist propaganda on the Dorset Echo. Comments from another commenter (micke12) were also deleted after he’d detailed the torment and abuse he’d experienced at the hands of social workers.
I myself added some comments following a recent interesting piece by Samantha Harman in the paper, and none were deleted, unlike most of the comments from David Devinghy, our supporter’s latest pseudonym – his latest account has been blocked, predictably. The piece:
http://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/10846389.Care_scandal__Dorset_County_Counci/
I suspect the only reason my comments haven’t been deleted is that I lead a political party. Do you really have to lead a political party to enable your comments to be kept online in this day and age? We’re seeing abuses of free speech on an astonishing scale at this newspaper and countless others. We’ve taken a copy of the entire comments stream (following the paper’s comment deletions) and if any more comments are deleted – including my own – we’ll publish them on this blog.
So, who’s removing comments made by people providing evidence which contradict feminist narratives? They’re the paper’s moderators – generally, in my experience, women. They may well be acting on their own initiative, relishing their power to delete comments and block people’s accounts. But sometimes they’re prompted by others to remove comments.
On 28 November I emailed the following letter to the paper’s Group Editor Toby Granville toby.granville@newsquestdorset.co.uk:
131128 letter to the Editor of the Dorset Echo
We exchanged a few emails and in one of my last ones I offered to send him ‘screen grabs’ of a number of Mr Devinghy’s comments any reasonable person would consider inoffensive, and he replied:
I have seen the comments so there is no need for me to see the screen grabs.
The comments were deleted following complaints.
If Mr Devinghy wishes to appeal against his suspension himself he is welcome to do so.
Aside from that, as I have said, I consider the matter closed.
‘Following complaints’. Given that feminists – gender feminists in particular – are so active in complaining, Mr Granville is basically giving them free rein to have materials they deem objectionable deleted from comment streams in his paper, and the commenters’ accounts blocked. If this is free speech, I’m an avocado dip. Is it any wonder the truth-seeking public is deserting the press media in favour of online media – not the online editions of print newspapers, but websites which relentless expose feminist narratives and censoring activities, such as ‘A Voice for Men’ http://avoiceformen.com.
‘Mr Devinghy’ is understandably disinclined to appeal against his suspension, given he’s had two years of his comments being deleted, and dozens of accounts blocked. And so it is that I shall shortly be emailing Mr Granville with this post, in which I make the following public challenge:
Mr Granville, could we please have your written commitment that your paper will cease deleting comments solely on the grounds that feminists – and gender feminists in particular, who are female supremacists driven by misandry – file ‘complaints’? To continue as you are will be to continue giving feminists free rein to censor the comment streams in the online edition of your paper. Thank you.
