MNHQ need to review policy regarding apologist posts

The trouble with this thread is that few people know what was actually posted, and it's interesting that, of those who do, the majority support the view that MN's line was inconsistent; and the one who doesn't support that view is someone who had a number of posts deleted for some pretty offensive statements.

As MN ultimately recognised, there's a line to be drawn between allowing free speech and allowing people to post highly objectionable comments suggesting that objecting to people who download child abuse material is simply hysterical frothing. The point is that they were extremely quick to delete the personal attacks, not so quick to delete the paedophile excusers, as they themselves acknowledged. However, I don't believe that this is in any shape or form MN policy, and on the whole I'm happy to accept the apologies that were made and draw a line under it.

Completely agree with Grey and U2.

The title in itself suggested triggers ... If you open such a thread you have to take some responsibility for the fact that there is likely to be contentious opinions on there.

This is NOT a safe place.

If your getting distressed or stressed by the site - turn off.

It's all about choices.

Op you posts are full of 'I' 'I think' 'I said'

Yeah, it's not all about YOU and what YOU want to be left in threads.

I am not "supporting" any one person. I am giving my opinion.

Just disagree if you wish. No need for the snidery.

Oh good, you have two suppprters.

I don't get your thread at all OP, and I'm pleased mnhq don't support your argument.

That was a horrific thread. Sometimes I think people go against the OP purely to be obtuse.

'being worried about the poor convicted paedophiles being thrown into the wilderness.'

I AM worried about this ^ and do think it's worth discussing in a measured way. I am in the minority being concerned about this, and I'm not going to rehearse those points of view here (as that's not what this thread is about).

But, if everyone who had called me a paedophile apologist yesterday had their way, then that subject would never get discussed. Useful debate effectively silenced.

That thread has to be the most disturbing one ive come across on here (I basically got told that I don't love my child unconditionally because I wouldn't support them if I were to find out they were a peadophile )

When things are busy MNHQ really needs one person focused on a single thread that could be causing genuine and serious distress to posters. The paedophile as a wedding guest is a case in point.

'you said (among other things) that viewing images of child abuse was clearly a lesser offence than actually committing the abuse - you seem to not realise that every image viewed has, at it's source, a child being abused.'

Er, no I didn't! I think you have me mixed up with another poster...

Several posters have actually called for the entire thread to be deleted so I'm hardly in a minority

But did many other people suggest that Olivia should lose her job?

I wasn't being goady. I was expressing an unpopular opinion and then standing up for that opinion. When people are very emotionally invested in a thread that distinction isn't always immediately apparent to them.

Because some people find it difficult to understand my point of view underlines exactly why I should be allowed to make it (politely and with no personal attacks, obviously). My point of view had value, even if just to highlight that not everyone thinks the same way.

Had I actually been an apologist for csa I am sure all those posts would have been deleted as offensive and triggering. As it was, I described csa as disgusting and said I would want to blank the guy but that got a wee bit lost by other posters who literally couldn't take dissent from their pov.