Deletions on the Stella Creasy Webchat thread

Expecting a higher level of professionalism from your content providers than you do from some of your moderators might be a bit unrealistic.

"Barracking"? Really? I find that quite offensive. Not true, or fair

I agree

WE WOULD WELCOME YOUR QUESTIONS

Noo......for fucks sake...not those questions, the other questions, the ones we have practiced answering

Not sure busyboysmum has a clue what she did either.

"Barracking"? Really? I find that quite offensive. Not true, or fair.

What a balls up.

My comment answering your question SSP was deleted as it violates talk guidelines.

I dont think she can either

So, how were reluctant campers posts in any way contrary to talk guidelines? I can't work out what she did wrong.

This is an odd way to treat your content providers.

I've spoken to busyboysmum. No email for her. And she's emailed MN to ask why she was banned. No reply.

How on earth can you agree to abide by rules that haven't been made yet

That thread was a mess with posts being deleted for nothing...and then being reinstated and then denying they had been deleted

I appreciate the whole rock and a hard place thing but mumsnet have locked threads in the past

So has reluctantcamper been banned then

I mean she did ask and hasnt been answered on the thread

I see you've deleted it...and not as a previously banned poster

Its very totalitarian the way MNHQ do this

Are we to understand that in the spirit of freeze peach women on Feminism and Women's Rights are no longer permitted to discuss proposed legislation that affects women's rights?

There appears to be an authoritarianism problem in management that I sincerely hope will be looked into promptly because chatting among yourselves about what you will or will not allow women to discuss on the site had a rather deleterious effect the last time you did it.

I think I disagree with the deletions too. Fair enough to delete multiple identical posts from the same person - that would be barracking. But when individual women ask a question that it is important to them it is disrespectful to that woman to simply say their opinion doesn't matter, and to delete that statement. As with the NSPCC thread, there was opportunity for anyone to speak - it's concerning and disappointing that questioning about such a major issue is being deemed by MNHQ to be disruptive.

I thought MNHQs USP was that it was full of fiercely independent and intelligent women, and that people shouldn't be expecting to not be asked awkward questions if they want to come on to promote themselves / their cause.

The redefining of the terms "women" and "female" is one of the biggest, if not the biggest issue facing women today and yet more than one question is seen as "barracking"? Why shouldn't visitors to the site face multiple questions so they can see how important this is to do many women?

(And Stella gave a very misleading answer, hence the continued questioning.)

But Kate - the questions were germane to Stella's amendment. It used the words "having or presumed to have" the "protected characteristic of sex".

This means that Stella's amendment did not apply only to women, or even only to women and GRC-holding trans people.

I would not support legislation that did not define misogyny as applying only to women.

Those questions were important for feminists to ascertain whether or not they would be prepared to do what Stella asked and lobby their MPs to support the amendment.

Appears to be the way MNHQ roll Camper.

Yes, a teeny-tiny window.

Very good points made on the other thread discussing this and how SC failed to consult women (but did consult) Stonewall, so hurtled over here at the eleventh hour to tick that box.

I just can’t take her seriously.

Are banned users going to be contacted and reinstated?

@Ooforfoxsakeridesagain I'd like to know that too.

It feels increasingly as though mnetters can ask the Right Questions or no questions at all.

I completely agree everywhere, MNetters have been raising this issue for a significant period of time and been ignored over & over, by numerous 'guests' - if anyone coming here to promote & seek posters support/involvement, they will be pulled up when serious, important & legitimate questions are ignored or obfuscated in responses.

Maybe MNHQ should explain this to those coming here for engagement when their views/organisations are antithetical to the safeguarding of women & children. Just a thought.

So basically GRA is starting to be a banned topic ? It’s already hidden away on the fem boards.

Yes the street harassment legislation is an important topic but GRA is too.

You basically came on thread and said ‘don’t talk about GRA’

Are we only allowed to talk about it where other folk can’t see or be highlighted to it?