At least they cared enough to write...

I left a comment on that BBC bansturbation article as follows:

"What a load of drivel. I'm surprised that the BBC publishes stuff which is quite clearly fabricated, distorted and exaggerated, and irrelevant for that matter."

Their moderators sent me an email as follows:

"Thank you for contributing to a Have Your Say debate. Unfortunately we've had to remove your content below. Posts to the BBC website may be removed if they are off-topic* for the debate to which they are posted. For more information, please visit http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/moderation.shtml#house...

Please do not reply to this email. For information on appeals visit http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/moderation.shtml#canappeal

Please note that anyone who seriously or repeatedly breaks the House Rules may have action taken against their account.

Regards, The BBC Moderation Team."

* I fail to see how my comment was 'off-topic', and AFAIAA (TFB to confirm) where a rule says a judge (i.e. a moderator) 'may' impose a fine (i.e. delete a comment) in certain circumstances, that is far from saying that he 'has to'.

See also UKIP's triumph in the House of Lords Supreme Court last year. The relevant law Section 58(2), PPERA, said that a judge "may" declare donations to be forfeit and the original High Court judge decided that this gave him the complete discretion not to do so if it seemed inappropriate (which it clearly wasn't, so he didn't).

So El Comm had to prove two things: that it was appropriate AND that he had no discretion anyway (and luckily they failed on one or both counts).