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

Why so much hate on MN?

612 replies

Oncetwicethreetimesmore · 21/09/2026 18:44

@MNHQ
Why so much hate on MN?
Posters hiding behind complaints about the government, presenting themselves as reasonable actors, to push hate about asylum seekers, people with disabilities, benefit claimants..Mostly the same names all day everyday.
I am told to report - MN just not interested.
I am told to hide the thread..
Why isn't moderation better?
I know this will always exist and exists on other platforms but MN makes no effort to even try to anything about it.
You can't really sell MN as a caring, supportive site with all this stuff offered on a daily basis in active.

OP posts:
Differentforgirls · Yesterday 10:15

KateDibi · Yesterday 10:11

Let’s see.

Labour are partial to a spot of class warfare, as we know.

David Cameron claimed it.

myjamisbetterthanyours · Yesterday 10:14

DuncinToffee · Yesterday 10:08

My point is that people who need it should receive PIP and people should stop demonising them for it.

Recognising that money helps navigating the system is part of that.

People are using the private appointments to ease if the pressure on the NHS, not to make it easier to claim.

KateDibi · Yesterday 10:13

EasternStandard · Yesterday 10:05

It’s just a new angle. Now PIP to ‘rich people’ is the problem. Labour spin on a dime. Amazing how fast it is. The Guardian helping out there.

If cash switches to services I doubt low or high income receivers will be split into groups. All those in that group will select services rather than get cash.

Who can forget the early reports of private school emigres being refused access to a local school after the VAT imposition etc.

Welfare apartheid here we come.

KateDibi · Yesterday 10:12

DuncinToffee · Yesterday 09:47

A link is always appreciated.

Selected c&p without a source needs further detail as a lot can be missed as proven by the articles other posters kindly linked.

Better.

EasternStandard · Yesterday 10:12

Differentforgirls · Yesterday 10:06

What group?

Have a look at Timms review. There’s initial suggestions for drop down services rather than cash, not for everything possibly MH related, you’re better off reading what is being looked at directly.

Disability charities will oppose, but Burnham needs Labour MPs onside.

KateDibi · Yesterday 10:11

Differentforgirls · Yesterday 09:45

The broadest shoulders have always claimed. Being well off doesn't make you less disabled.

Let’s see.

Labour are partial to a spot of class warfare, as we know.

DuncinToffee · Yesterday 10:10

EasternStandard · Yesterday 10:05

It’s just a new angle. Now PIP to ‘rich people’ is the problem. Labour spin on a dime. Amazing how fast it is. The Guardian helping out there.

If cash switches to services I doubt low or high income receivers will be split into groups. All those in that group will select services rather than get cash.

What new angle?

That labour pays the work shy is nonsense?

DuncinToffee · Yesterday 10:08

myjamisbetterthanyours · Yesterday 10:04

What’s your point?

People can have genuine needs, be assessed by a private doctor and find it easy to get PIP?

And people can have genuine needs, be assessed by the NHS and find it easy to get PIP?

Both can be true.

My point is that people who need it should receive PIP and people should stop demonising them for it.

Recognising that money helps navigating the system is part of that.

BIossomtoes · Yesterday 10:07

EasternStandard · Yesterday 10:05

It’s just a new angle. Now PIP to ‘rich people’ is the problem. Labour spin on a dime. Amazing how fast it is. The Guardian helping out there.

If cash switches to services I doubt low or high income receivers will be split into groups. All those in that group will select services rather than get cash.

It’s in the Telegraph too. Is that bastion of left wing politics helping out too?

Differentforgirls · Yesterday 10:06

EasternStandard · Yesterday 10:05

It’s just a new angle. Now PIP to ‘rich people’ is the problem. Labour spin on a dime. Amazing how fast it is. The Guardian helping out there.

If cash switches to services I doubt low or high income receivers will be split into groups. All those in that group will select services rather than get cash.

What group?

EasternStandard · Yesterday 10:05

myjamisbetterthanyours · Yesterday 09:50

Does it matter who diagnosed you?

Surely the suffering by someone diagnosed privately is not or a lesser nature than that of someone who was diagnosed by the NHS?

It’s just a new angle. Now PIP to ‘rich people’ is the problem. Labour spin on a dime. Amazing how fast it is. The Guardian helping out there.

If cash switches to services I doubt low or high income receivers will be split into groups. All those in that group will select services rather than get cash.

myjamisbetterthanyours · Yesterday 10:04

DuncinToffee · Yesterday 09:58

It doesn't say that in those articles

It does say people have genuine needs for PIP.

What’s your point?

People can have genuine needs, be assessed by a private doctor and find it easy to get PIP?

And people can have genuine needs, be assessed by the NHS and find it easy to get PIP?

Both can be true.

Differentforgirls · Yesterday 10:02

myjamisbetterthanyours · Yesterday 09:56

No it doesn’t contradict that.

It shows how easy it is to get it no matter how you’re diagnosed.

When did you apply?

myjamisbetterthanyours · Yesterday 10:00

BIossomtoes · Yesterday 09:57

It does exactly that otherwise these people would just go to their GP. Remember that old adage about he who pays the piper calls the tune?

Do you want them to waste valuable NHS resources when they can essentially ease the burden on the health service and go private?

DuncinToffee · Yesterday 09:58

myjamisbetterthanyours · Yesterday 09:56

No it doesn’t contradict that.

It shows how easy it is to get it no matter how you’re diagnosed.

It doesn't say that in those articles

It does say people have genuine needs for PIP.

BIossomtoes · Yesterday 09:57

myjamisbetterthanyours · Yesterday 09:56

No it doesn’t contradict that.

It shows how easy it is to get it no matter how you’re diagnosed.

It does exactly that otherwise these people would just go to their GP. Remember that old adage about he who pays the piper calls the tune?

myjamisbetterthanyours · Yesterday 09:56

DuncinToffee · Yesterday 09:52

No it doesn't , it just contradicts the claim that it is so easy to get diagnosed by a NHS GP

No it doesn’t contradict that.

It shows how easy it is to get it no matter how you’re diagnosed.

DuncinToffee · Yesterday 09:52

myjamisbetterthanyours · Yesterday 09:50

Does it matter who diagnosed you?

Surely the suffering by someone diagnosed privately is not or a lesser nature than that of someone who was diagnosed by the NHS?

No it doesn't , it just contradicts the claim that it is so easy to get diagnosed by a NHS GP

TemperanceWest · Yesterday 09:52

KateDibi · Yesterday 09:43

Incidentally, its customary to thank posters for bringing content to their attention, rather than criticising them for not posting the entire article etc.

Sometimes it is paywalled - so, you’re welcome.

Apologies Kate. Thank you.

myjamisbetterthanyours · Yesterday 09:50

KateDibi · Yesterday 09:40

The content of the article, of course - whether from the DT or Guardian.

Will be interesting to see if Labour now really start down to clamp down on PIP once they are aware that the ‘broadest shoulders’ DC are claiming.

We all know the drill.

I’m sure they will find a way.

DuncinToffee · Yesterday 09:50

As PIP isn't means tested, the broadest shoulders doesn't exist in this context

It should stop the attacks on poorer people claiming PIP as they have a lot more obstacles to clear.

myjamisbetterthanyours · Yesterday 09:50

DuncinToffee · Yesterday 09:12

So it is easier to get PIP when you are more affluent and can pay for private diagnosis?

Does it matter who diagnosed you?

Surely the suffering by someone diagnosed privately is not or a lesser nature than that of someone who was diagnosed by the NHS?

DuncinToffee · Yesterday 09:47

KateDibi · Yesterday 09:43

Incidentally, its customary to thank posters for bringing content to their attention, rather than criticising them for not posting the entire article etc.

Sometimes it is paywalled - so, you’re welcome.

A link is always appreciated.

Selected c&p without a source needs further detail as a lot can be missed as proven by the articles other posters kindly linked.

ForTipsyFinch · Yesterday 09:45

FKAT · 21/09/2026 20:10

Women have to spend 99% of the day smiling and being kind and letting things go and performing good femininity. It's good to have a board to vent our spleen and unleash our most uncharitable thoughts.

We literally don’t. There’s no need to play that performance in 2026.

Differentforgirls · Yesterday 09:45

KateDibi · Yesterday 09:40

The content of the article, of course - whether from the DT or Guardian.

Will be interesting to see if Labour now really start down to clamp down on PIP once they are aware that the ‘broadest shoulders’ DC are claiming.

We all know the drill.

The broadest shoulders have always claimed. Being well off doesn't make you less disabled.

Swipe left for the next trending thread