From my experience of The Guardian's increasingly ironically-named 'Comment is Free' section, all comments that breach house rules are quickly modded into oblivion anyway. Indeed, I've yet to see anything via such sections remotely akin to 'shoot all muzzies!' and infinite variables thereof, which suggests the system already in place, works....

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/31/readers-editor-on-readers-comments-below-the-line

Being a cynical fellow then I'll wager the real reason for this is that the Guardian's noticed a general yet inevitable increase in legitimate antipathy towards mass migration et al expressed by users on its site. And the Guardian won't stand for that so censorship it is....whilst disingenuously blaming the decision on extreme elements of course!

Incidentally right-wing blog Guido Fawkes have also announced similar censorship measures. The crucial difference between Guido and The Guardian being that the former can at least accurately claim to be a pseudo repository of the aforementioned 'shoot all muzzies!' type rhetoric....

I wouldn't have expected anything less from the Guardian tbh.

So in effect, they're using the BBC model?

You mean shut down dissenting voices on your platform and continue to spin your agenda without criticism?

Worked for Joseph Goebbels.

The only thing the Left hate more than rationalism is honest debate.

"honest debate."

All the articles posted by "conservatives" here were lies.

I can understand deleting comments that are vulgar, racist, and/or inappropriate but makes no sense to block those that are civil, despite being potentially offfensive...

I don't think its a problem that they are offensive. That just means they are digging their own graves ideologically. The problem is when lies are presented as facts.

In any case there are currently white lynch mobs running around in Stockholm and Cologne, so you guys got what you wanted, no?

Are you surprised? It is The Guardian after all.

Are you surprised? It is The Guardian after all.

And what is that supposed to mean?

I'm sure you can work it out.

Clarification:

Certain subjects – race, immigration and Islam in particular – attract an unacceptable level of toxic commentary, believes Mary Hamilton, our executive editor, audience. “The overwhelming majority of these comments tend towards racism, abuse of vulnerable subjects, author abuse and trolling, and the resulting conversations below the line bring very little value but cause consternation and concern among both our readers and our journalists,” she said last week.

As a result, it had been decided that comments would not be opened on pieces on those three topics unless the moderators knew they had the capacity to support the conversation and that they believed a positive debate was possible.

I don't agree that this is true:

"“The overwhelming majority of these comments tend towards racism, abuse of vulnerable subjects, author abuse and trolling"

There are a few outright racist posts and posts insulting other posters, but nowhere near a simple majority, never mind an overwhelming majority.

The real problem for the Graun is that it is the left wing kerb, which exists to define anything further left as unacceptably radical. It's as racist and fascist and zionist as every other rag but it has to pretend that it isn't or it will look like the Torygraph or the Inderelictependent. The comment threads are riddled with claques and stooges trying to make the threads appear to be naturally racist, fascist, zionist etc. The level of debate is a little higher than on the t'graph but not by much.

I believe eventually the market will rule against them. Comment sections are too popular so the sites that block/disable comments will lose market share over time - and probably reverse the decision.

"Straight to the comments."

I don't agree with smothering personal expression, but I guess there needs to be some type of decorum. We will never make any progress if voices are squelched, offensive or not. I know the truth can be very ugly, but I prefer it to lies and hyperbole.

I just think they can't hack the fact that the large majority of commenters are very concerned about the migration crisis and the effect it could have on their country. The Graun staff seem to want everyone to accept it as a great thing.

I'm afraid you're right, which just drives the devision between sides further apart, and makes a honest, pragmatic solution that much more difficult to reach.

We are actually getting further away from a peaceful resolution.

The Guardian's comical consumption of its 3/4 of a billion £ trust fund steps up another notch.

the modern left is totalitarian in nature and this decision is not only unsurprising - it is expected.

Says the unemployed Australian who is living on welfare..

I am a retired New Yorker living on my accumulated superannuation and investments. But thank you for your relevant and topical response.

Lol aren't they going bankrupt in a few years?

Unless they substantially lift revenue and/or cut costs, they will chew through the Scott Trust fund in less than a decade.

the problem with the Guardian is that it is read by mainly liberals - and liberals don't like to pay for anything. As such, squeezing more juice from this fruit is unlikely.

The Guardian blamed the Rotherham scandal on police being racist against "Asians" and left out facts of the case that were reported by every other British news outlet on the story.

Its raison d'etre is to guard its readers from unpleasant objective truths.

Having opinions which deviate from the party line appear on the site is unacceptable to the Pravda of the West.

Those poor Guardian reporters have been weeping genuine tears of horror into their quinoa and flax at some of the beastly comments and all people can do on here is condemn them?

Have we no humanity for their feelings?

Give it two and it will return after a fall in the number of readers.