Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

HemmingGate: To ban or not to ban, that is the question MNHQ

869 replies

CarpeVinum · 30/12/2013 17:46

Some of us would like to know if a certain politico will be banned, proper.

No rush.

We know you have a lot on your plate with ... stuff.

(I probably got two quotes mixed up in subject line. Don't panic! It's me not you. Am philistine. Italy is wasted on me. Not keen on art, prefer shopping.)

OP posts:
BeyondTheLimitsOfAcceptability · 13/01/2014 20:57

Bump for petition

WestmorlandSausage · 13/01/2014 20:56

if anyone is worried about it you can sign it and the untick the box at the bottom so that it doesn't publish your name.

PacificDogwood · 13/01/2014 20:48

Signed.

I think I am no.18... some way to go yet.

I may have to watch panorama on iPlayer as apparently Insidious2 must be viewed chez PD tonight Hmm. Or an early night...

LostInWales · 13/01/2014 20:44

Petitiony bump

AnyFucker · 13/01/2014 20:26

bump for the petition

WestmorlandSausage · 13/01/2014 20:00

for anyone who wants to see slightly more than a mumsnet ban...

www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/david-cameron-british-prime-minister-mps-who-break-the-law-should-resign-hemmingate

Lilka · 13/01/2014 19:16

Phew

PacificDogwood · 13/01/2014 18:54

Yay!!

Maryz · 13/01/2014 18:54

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Spero · 13/01/2014 18:40

o noes! does this mean Edward will now not be answering my questions???

Lioninthesun · 13/01/2014 18:39

Yes, brave I think too. I know a lot of us mere posters have felt threatened by him to varying degrees and so I appreciate that.

I think we are able to spot his cult/mistresses a mile off on here now anyway, let alone his ad hominem debates Wink

AnyFucker · 13/01/2014 18:36

Thanks, Justine. On a site "for parents" his presence was certainly a jarring one. The outing of posters RL names was beyond the pale.

Spero · 13/01/2014 18:36

True. Futile to worry over things I can do nothing about.

At least he won't be spreading his poison over here any more.

thanks MNHQ.

lougle · 13/01/2014 18:33

Good decision, Justine, and a brave one, I think.

Spero, Netmums have their own team who can make decisions on the sort of people they want on their site. As Maryz says, you couldn't educate Netmums in any sense on this - you'd be banned before you started.

Maryz · 13/01/2014 18:31

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Maryz · 13/01/2014 18:30

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Spero · 13/01/2014 18:30

thanks for letting us know but in a way it is a shame as at least here he was easy to identify.

My worry now is what happens over at net mums.

MNHQ
JustineMumsnet · 13/01/2014 18:29

Fyi all, we've written to John Hemmings to let him know that we think it's best he didn't come back onto Mumsnet. Can't really see that how constructive debate could now take place given all the water under the bridge etc.

Spero · 13/01/2014 18:28

No, I don't believe the family law system views children as the possessions of their fathers - that is very far from what I experience.

Family law tries to respect and recognise the rights of the child and to approach all decisions as to what would be in the best interests of the child. thus contact disputes are always seen as it being the child's right to have a relationship with a parent, not a parent's right to have a relationship with a child.

BUT I do believe and have stated on numerous occasions that I think JH and his gang are motivated by desire to control the women and children in families. That is what really upsets him, that the State tries to intervene in the right of the patriarch to control.

Its not my blog as I am not a radical feminist. I agree with most of it however.

Lioninthesun · 13/01/2014 18:12

Spero didn't write that blog and I doubt she has exactly the same opinion on everything anyone else writes or says. Who does?
I agree with the majority of that though, although perhaps it is a little based from the radical feminist viewpoint for me, personally.
I think the letter as a whole is correct. JH is a huge liability and should not have access to personal information of any kind. I certainly wouldn't employ him in any firm with sensitive information, let alone Parliament!

Doasbedoneby · 13/01/2014 18:06

' I believe a fundamental failure in our child protection laws is that we still view children as possessions of their fathers and refuse to acknowledge the gendered nature of violence and how children, young girls in particular, are groomed to view violence and male control as normal. '

Is that what you believe Spero?

Spero · 13/01/2014 18:01

So its not just the Child Protection system that is corrupt but apparently the criminal courts as well for 'fitting up' wholly innocent paedophiles?

Where does it all end?

www.ukcolumn.org/blogs/lianne-smith-why-there-are-questions-be-asked

Spero · 13/01/2014 17:59

O gawd, Carpe has just found a you tube video of JH on stage with Brian Gerrish, who has written about Lianne Smith saying she was a 'victim' of evil social workers and the criminal trial against her paedophile partner was trumped up....

WHY is he an MP?

Spero · 13/01/2014 17:55

Here's a good blog.

Duncan Hames has one more week to reply to me or I am going to start sending him more stuff.

elegantgatheringofwhitesnows.com/?p=1085