Deleted Thread Announcement - "Lads"

To quote MichaelMumsnet's post response above:

"The deletion message was an attempt at moderating with a light touch - it obviously missed the mark with a few of you.
The 'lads' was a nod to the OP - apologies if it landed badly."

"Moderating with a light touch"
Deletion of a thread about a sustained campaign of bullying of a Mumsnet member, including economic punishment, ie. having her PayPal account closed down so that she could not receive financial support from Mumsnet members when she was in dire financial straits.

"it obviously missed the mark with a few of you."
Patronising, or what? "Everyone else is in on the joke - did it go straight over your humourless feminist / pretty, little dumb-blonde heads?" (Pick your misogynistic undertone.)

"The 'lads' was a nod to the OP."
Yes - we get it. This is part of the problem
A jokey "nod" to the OP (male) in a facetious Deletion Message ("billions" of reports FFS!), a Deletion Message that is addressed directly to the OP, ignoring the women commenting on the thread and the fact that it deals with the serious matter of a woman being persecuted in real life.

But hey ho! That's not important. What is important is that a male who is not a Mumsnet member reports a thread started by a male who is Mumsnet member and a Moderator (male?) joins in the "fun" by breaking up a perceived "Twitter spat" with an apposite Father Ted quote. Ha-bloody-ha!

"apologies if it landed badly."
"If" !!! On the FWR (Feminist/Women's Right) Board?
Of course it 'effin "landed badly"

RufustheLanglovingreindeer I just checked the current conversion rates:

"a few" = "billions"

Z0rr0, Redshoeblueshoe, DioneTheDiabolist - if Comerford was on the Mumsnet thread, I did not see him there. So, apologies if anything I said gave that impression.

I have no idea what was supposedly "libellous" about the thread and it is odd that that "libel" was not mentioned in the Thread Deletion Message or by MichaelMumsnet in this thread.

According to the Twitter thread linked above by Oncewasblueandyellowtoo, Comerford says there were "12 or 13 replies" - and he does not claim to have been on the thread himself.

I am pretty sure that the last time I saw the thread that there were 12 replies though I would not swear to it.

However, the only archived version of the thread that I can find has the OP plus 10 replies. The last reply is from the OP and just says, "Thanks for kind words. I'm ok. I am a bit exhausted from all the bear-baiting so I'm using the Twitter timeout to restock, if that's the word."

If there were any further replies and they were problematic in some way, whether libellous or from some bloke muscling in, I guess we will never know. Unless someone took screen shots or Mumsnet can clarify?

However, if to pursue this further would be to make this a TAAT and therefore ripe for deletion, maybe it is best left at that.

Which is also why I am not linking to the archived version that I found.

MichaelMumsnet - This is looking horribly like a phenomenon that this all to familiar on Twitter but which we really should not expect to see on Mumsnet, ie. a man intervenes in a conversation involving several (apparently invisible) women and addresses the only man involved.

I would also strongly suspect that the "number of reports" (One-Two-Three-"Billions" !?) that succeeded in censoring women were mostly made by males. All on the Feminist Chat/Women's Rights board on Mumsnet.

You could not make it up!

I can understand how on first sight (the Thread title) that the thread might have appeared to be "bringing over a spat from Twitter" but it was obvious from the OP and following discussion that:

a) the OP was reporting a sequence of events in which he was not personally involved, so therefore not "bringing over a spat from Twitter"

b) neither of the parties to the conversation on Twitter were involved in the discussion on Mumsnet, so again not "bringing over a spat from Twitter"

c) the purpose was to bring attention to the ongoing campaign of bullying against a Mumsnet member that I have already detailed. As far as I can recall there were only screenshots, ie. no links that would enable "bringing over a spat from Twitter" and then taking it back to Twitter.

d) Most if not all replies were from members who either said they were not on Twitter or that they were blocked by the man harassing the Mumsnet member on Twitter and there was no evidence, at least that I saw, of any "spat" on that thread. So, again, not "bringing over a spat from Twitter".

After Mumsnet asking members to support the platform financially to keep it afloat, it is a kick in the teeth to see that the Mods are so very far from having our backs and, to add insult to injury, misrepresent "a number" of reports (from members or the "external monitors"?) as "billions" and have the insensitivity to talk over our heads (the "girls"?) with "a nod to the Lads".

"Moderating with a light touch" that "missed the mark" ??

No, heavy-handed censorship silencing women with a side-order of Bantz between the Lads to really put us in our place.

Ajollygoodwrap - I did not start a "Thread About A Thread" (TAAT) here. This is a request for clarification of a Thread Deletion Message.

"It's a bloody free site and chat forum."

Maybe you have decided not to pay for Premium Membership in order to keep Mumsnet running but some of us have:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/3878378-Premium-Membership-Privacy-and-Data-Protection-MNHQ-please-clarify?msgid=95683430

"I know I would jog on if I was so frothy about how a site's been run"

I suggest you do so then, as no one else is foaming at the mouth quite as rabidly here

Z0rr0 - I agree about the baffling "billions" thing. To claim that "we're getting a billion reports" is childishly hyperbolic and just adds to the staggeringly offensive trivialisation of a very serious issue.

ItsLateHumpty - "I also thought MN had moved away from allowing reports from non-members, so who are the ‘billions’ that complained? Or are we being mod’ed by non-members still?"

Mumsnet has previously reassured us that "external monitors" are not an issue - but that hardly chimes with the "billions" claim:

@JustineMumsnet said

"I just want to pick up on the idea that we simply remove stuff because it's reported by non-members or single issue activists and that this happens a lot. In fact we've had zero reports on trans issues by email since the beginning of the year.

And when posts are reported we look at the post in context and apply our guidelines to decide whether or not it warrants deletion. Posts on both sides of the trans/ womens' rights debate are reported overwhelmingly by long-standing mumsnet members who are active on the site. When it's clear that people are reporting vexatiously on posts that do not require deletion we deal with that appropriately, and we have banned people who are only here to promote a single issue or to censor the conversation around a single issue.

Ultimately our aim is to consider only one thing though, whether posts are made within our guidelines and if they're not, they go."

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/3874618-Mumsnet-Premium-membership-please-support-us-if-you-can?msgid=95471726#95471726

That reassurance is completely at odds with the Thread Deletion Message I am asking about:

Message from MNHQ: Lads, we're getting a billion reports and tbh, we're not sure that we're the place for this. How about thrashing it all out somewhere else? We're going to remove this thread now. Love and peace, MNHQ.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3907094-Comerfords-style-on-Twitter

In particular:

". . . when posts are reported we look at the post in context. . . . When it's clear that people are reporting vexatiously on posts that do not require deletion we deal with that appropriately, we have banned people who are only here to promote a single issue or to censor the conversation around a single issue.

Ultimately our aim is to consider only one thing though, whether posts are made within our guidelines and if they're not, they go."

The "context" is, as I have explained in my OP:

"a sustained campaign that has included "economic sanctions", blocking (a Mumsnet member's) receipt of donations from Mumsnetters when she was in dire financial straights. . .

. . . b) about a young woman being persecuted, primarily by a gang of males led by a man."

Precisely because I wanted to avoid this being perceived as a TAAT, I did not mention the details of this attack as part of a wider campaign "to censor the conversation around a single issue".

For the benefit of anyone who missed the deleted thread - but please do NOT pick up the conversation in this thread - the "single issue conversation" being censored is the desperate need for emotional and practical support for detransitioners.