Please or to access all these features

Site stuff

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

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

FWR being trolled by a user called AidaP

513 replies

Hedgehogforshort · 08/04/2026 20:35

Hi MNHQ can you please address the issue of a certain poster called AidaP who is not participating in debate he is just trolling.

to be clear this person is a trans woman who has been convicted of violence and is posting promotion of acts of violence against women elsewhere.

in particular there is one elsewhere about using a roughly hewn rolling pin to rape women.

you realy need to look in to him it is just so not on that he is being allowed to bother us here.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
18
Manxexile · 09/04/2026 18:29

Not sure I'm being totally relevant here as I'm not really on social media like twitter(?) reddit etc but isn't the apprpriate course of action to make formal complaint to the polce re causing alarm and distress under the public order act and to continue complainijg until the police act?

Isn't that what TRAs do and isn't that how they deal with their hurty feelz after reading social media posts and get people arrested?

ErrolTheDragon · 09/04/2026 18:24

GlovedhandsCecilia · 09/04/2026 17:54

I mean, people use that language quite frequently. It isnt particualrly shocking to me, no. Saying someone should die or be hurt, that's crossing a line. But if "fuck you" isnt inherently a rape threat ("Whether it is a "rape threat" or not"), then no, I don't think it's too far in that type of company (Social Media).

If you were at work or even on this forum, then yes, too far outside of the CoC for those places.

While ‘fuck you’ isn’t necessarily a rape threat, specifying a phallic object with which to do it makes it so. It’s a horrendously graphic image. Hmm

Ereshkigalangcleg · 09/04/2026 18:21

SirChenjins · 09/04/2026 17:04

I sincerely hope it's not an actual rape threat - but I do think it's the language of a man who carries a lot violent imagery in his head (the result of watching god knows what online), who mixes in circles where this sort of rape-y language is commonplace, and who carries so much hatred and vitriol for women who simply want privacy, safety and dignity in spaces where men are not allowed that he uses angry and aggressive language to try and make them feel threatened and uneasy.

The manosphere is full of them.

This.

FaceBothered · 09/04/2026 18:12

FlirtsWithRhinos · 09/04/2026 17:46

It is certainly not just that "the username 'looks' the same".

The bloke himself has stated it is him. He is proud of it. He posted a link, on MN, to his own Bluesky account to prove this.

I'm very surprised Cecilia didn't mention that.

Yes, thanks.

A PP explained this upthread.

FlirtsWithRhinos · 09/04/2026 18:12

GlovedhandsCecilia · 09/04/2026 17:54

I mean, people use that language quite frequently. It isnt particualrly shocking to me, no. Saying someone should die or be hurt, that's crossing a line. But if "fuck you" isnt inherently a rape threat ("Whether it is a "rape threat" or not"), then no, I don't think it's too far in that type of company (Social Media).

If you were at work or even on this forum, then yes, too far outside of the CoC for those places.

Wow. Patriarchy has really done a number on you.

No, fuck X with a splintery rolling pin is never ok language. You should be shocked at anyone choosing to use it for effect because whether they intend to act on it or not it's displaying a pretty vile go-to set of thoughts about women.

I invite you to consider whether you would consider equivalent language that made light of types of violence that are strongly associated with racially motivated attacks or racial injustice aimed at a Black person as sanguinely as you do rhetoric rooted in sexual violence aimed at a female person.

DeanElderberry · 09/04/2026 18:11

Threatening to fuck anyone with an implement is a rape threat. Unequivocal. Violent.

Anyone who thinks it's a 'common colloquialism' moves in dangerous circles.

ThatCyanCat · 09/04/2026 18:10

FlirtsWithRhinos · 09/04/2026 17:57

@BeckyAMumsnet

I understood MN can also ban posters for not posting in good faith, and that posting on other social media platforms to comment about MN threads on which one is participating tends to been seen as such.

FWIW I personally do not want that poster banned. I think their posts speak for themselves and their true values very eloquently and the more clearly this is seen the better.

However, how on earth can the Not Posting in Good Faith rule not apply here?

I am in two minds on this. On the one hand, Operation Let Them Speak worked well; they got more visible with their signs and screaming for women to be shot, hanged, bludgeoned, decapitated, raped and pissed on, and even people who hadn't been paying attention started to realise they were just a bunch of thuggish, perverted men. On the other, not many people here on MN still need convincing of that, and his only purpose here is to disrupt and intimidate. He can say anything on the cesspit that is X where threats, overt racism and disgusting images run riot and nothing is ever done about it, so we can always get screenshots from there for the 12 people left in the country who still don't realise what he and his mates actually are.

Do we really need to put up with this here? There's a reason he chose it. People get banned if they say "I think you're a troll" too often, or are rude for too long.

hazelberry · 09/04/2026 18:05

SamphiretheTervosaur · 09/04/2026 17:56

Things here must have changed as he was very much persona no gratis with many for some of his off site communications

Some on FWR were fund raising for him a few months ago.

FlirtsWithRhinos · 09/04/2026 18:04

GlovedhandsCecilia · 09/04/2026 17:55

No I have second hand knowledge. And as I originally took for gospel what you guys said about the "rape threat", I am now more sceptical about your other statements.

Here you go. Posted 09:59, 3 above yours. P's post confirms it is his Bluesky account.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5512787-daughter-in-early-20s-lonely-due-to-gc-views?page=5&reply=151505397

He also posts several times afterwards making similar points that although he said "fuck [her] with a splintery rolling pin" it wasn't an actual rape threat, just demeaning and misogynist language that she deserves for being an uppity women so that is ok then. (I paraphrase but that is the gist).

Fair enough to miss one post but I am surprised given how active you were on the same thread at the same time you missed all the subsequent ones as well. You can see why I would have assumed you had seen it.

SirChenjins · 09/04/2026 18:03

FlirtsWithRhinos · 09/04/2026 17:57

@BeckyAMumsnet

I understood MN can also ban posters for not posting in good faith, and that posting on other social media platforms to comment about MN threads on which one is participating tends to been seen as such.

FWIW I personally do not want that poster banned. I think their posts speak for themselves and their true values very eloquently and the more clearly this is seen the better.

However, how on earth can the Not Posting in Good Faith rule not apply here?

I agree - it does seem an odd decision, given the good faith rule.

However, it's the official decision so that's that. This thread has been very helpful though, and has highlighted exactly what sort of aggressive man he is.

Helleofabore · 09/04/2026 18:02

GlovedhandsCecilia · 09/04/2026 17:40

Do they specifically use language like "safeguarding" in these documents?

yes. I recommend that you read some of the VAWG, sexual harassment policies as a start.

Bagsintheboot · 09/04/2026 17:58

We’d also ask posters to be mindful about repeating or amplifying very serious allegations about other users on the boards. Even when well-intentioned, that can escalate situations quickly and make it harder for us to moderate.

Not four pages in and this already bears repeating.

FlirtsWithRhinos · 09/04/2026 17:57

@BeckyAMumsnet

I understood MN can also ban posters for not posting in good faith, and that posting on other social media platforms to comment about MN threads on which one is participating tends to been seen as such.

FWIW I personally do not want that poster banned. I think their posts speak for themselves and their true values very eloquently and the more clearly this is seen the better.

However, how on earth can the Not Posting in Good Faith rule not apply here?

ApplebyArrows · 09/04/2026 17:56

BeckyAMumsnet · 09/04/2026 12:40

Hello @Hedgehogforshort thanks for posting. We understand the strength of feeling here. Allegations of violent or abusive behaviour, wherever they’re said to take place, are clearly very serious, and it’s entirely reasonable that posters would be concerned about who they’re interacting with on the boards.

It may be helpful to explain how we approach situations like this, though.
Our moderation is necessarily grounded in what happens on Mumsnet. We look at behaviour on the site, including patterns over time and we will act where users are breaching Talk guidelines. That doesn’t mean that concerns are dismissed, but the threshold for action has to be mainly grounded in what we can evidence here.

We’d also ask posters to be mindful about repeating or amplifying very serious allegations about other users on the boards. Even when well-intentioned, that can escalate situations quickly and make it harder for us to moderate fairly.

Please do continue to report posts that you think cross the line, that’s the most helpful way to bring specific issues to our attention. We are keeping an eye on this in the meantime.

Thanks all.

I would like to mindfully repeat and amplify that AidaP has expressed a desire for his opponents to be subject to aggravated sexual assault.

SamphiretheTervosaur · 09/04/2026 17:56

hazelberry · 09/04/2026 16:42

I mean Glinner has posted some pretty appalling shit on Twitter yet he's welcomed on FWR with open arms.

Maybe he should be banned for what he posted elsewhere.

Things here must have changed as he was very much persona no gratis with many for some of his off site communications

GlovedhandsCecilia · 09/04/2026 17:55

FlirtsWithRhinos · 09/04/2026 17:51

Well, now you do.

Please learn from this, and next time make sure you have the full facts before misdirecting people.

No I have second hand knowledge. And as I originally took for gospel what you guys said about the "rape threat", I am now more sceptical about your other statements.

GlovedhandsCecilia · 09/04/2026 17:54

FlirtsWithRhinos · 09/04/2026 17:50

Please, take a step back and look at yourself. Whether it is a "rape threat" or not, you are defending someone who chose to demeaning a women with the phrase "fuck her with a splintery rolling pin" simply because he disagrees with her.

Surely you can't think that is ok?

I mean, people use that language quite frequently. It isnt particualrly shocking to me, no. Saying someone should die or be hurt, that's crossing a line. But if "fuck you" isnt inherently a rape threat ("Whether it is a "rape threat" or not"), then no, I don't think it's too far in that type of company (Social Media).

If you were at work or even on this forum, then yes, too far outside of the CoC for those places.

Gofaster2023 · 09/04/2026 17:53

ohwtf · 09/04/2026 17:33

This is all so unhinged

Agreed.

FlirtsWithRhinos · 09/04/2026 17:51

GlovedhandsCecilia · 09/04/2026 17:49

I have no firsthand knowledge of that.

Well, now you do.

Please learn from this, and next time make sure you have the full facts before misdirecting people.

FlirtsWithRhinos · 09/04/2026 17:50

GlovedhandsCecilia · 09/04/2026 17:39

I asked a specific question. I'm asking if you think every time someone says "fuck that person", you see it as a rape threat. Or only when they add the latter.

See to me, if I thought someone was saying "kill him", I'd object (in most cases); I wouldn't need someone to say "kill him with a gun" for it to be objectionable.

Please, take a step back and look at yourself. Whether it is a "rape threat" or not, you are defending someone who chose to demeaning a women with the phrase "fuck her with a splintery rolling pin" simply because he disagrees with her.

Surely you can't think that is ok?

GlovedhandsCecilia · 09/04/2026 17:49

FlirtsWithRhinos · 09/04/2026 17:46

It is certainly not just that "the username 'looks' the same".

The bloke himself has stated it is him. He is proud of it. He posted a link, on MN, to his own Bluesky account to prove this.

I'm very surprised Cecilia didn't mention that.

I have no firsthand knowledge of that.

GlovedhandsCecilia · 09/04/2026 17:48

Shedmistress · 09/04/2026 17:43

The reason that the splintery baseball bat is particularly pertinent is the additional damage such an act would cause. Its not just the potential violent sexual assault but the permanent internal damage that would cause.

Yes but if I really thought "fuck that person" meant that, just the SA would be enough. Just the "fuck you/him/them/Susan".

I'm not only concerned about SA when violence is a problem. So I'd be speaking up anytime anyone said "fuck them", irrespective of whether I agreed that the person in question is bad or not.

FlirtsWithRhinos · 09/04/2026 17:46

FaceBothered · 09/04/2026 16:46

But anyone on Mumsnet can choose whatever user name they want as long as it's not already taken?

It is certainly not just that "the username 'looks' the same".

The bloke himself has stated it is him. He is proud of it. He posted a link, on MN, to his own Bluesky account to prove this.

I'm very surprised Cecilia didn't mention that.

SirChenjins · 09/04/2026 17:46

To be fair to AidaP, he threatened a splintery rolling pin and not a baseball bat.

The damage the pin would inflict on a woman who was being fucked by it is still horrific though.

Shedmistress · 09/04/2026 17:43

GlovedhandsCecilia · 09/04/2026 17:39

I asked a specific question. I'm asking if you think every time someone says "fuck that person", you see it as a rape threat. Or only when they add the latter.

See to me, if I thought someone was saying "kill him", I'd object (in most cases); I wouldn't need someone to say "kill him with a gun" for it to be objectionable.

The reason that the splintery baseball bat is particularly pertinent is the additional damage such an act would cause. Its not just the potential violent sexual assault but the permanent internal damage that would cause.