MNHQ: Please take another look at the posters who have been suspended

but we asked people to get back in touch with us first to confirm they were happy to stick withing TGs.

It might make it easier if you send those messages from an email address that is actually monitored.

People reply till they're blue in the face to no avail until they either twig that they have to mail "contactus" email or just give up & quit....

Lest we forget:

Mumsnet founder: Transgender activists try to curb free speech on site

Here's a Sharetoken version of the link Spartacus Autisticus posted above.

sashh

It's particularly likely when looking at the site on phone

Freedom of speech, please reconsider MN.

I agree: please reconsider. We have rules for abusive comments and other anti-'spirit' messages, but please remember that posters on here are worried for themselves, their daughters and young sons, and all women. Sexual assault, rape, and intimidation are all likely to make us a bit - sorry - cross.

Yes, please reconsider MN

Me too

I am often guilty of not reading the full thread before posting. Its a habit I seem to not be able to get out of. I read the OP, reply to that alone, then read through the thread generally. Especially on AIBU as I prefer to put my gut instinct rather than maybe be swayed by what others say.

I had no idea about rule 3, having missed the Web chat but I've been guilty in the past of posting a question on a Web chat that's already been asked because I haven't had time to read the whole thread before the chat has ended.

Or you read the whole thing, post a question and either it has already been asked between your reading and posting or yo are having PC troubles and it doesn't post for 10 mins.

These are genuine mistakes and can get people banned.

Adding my voice to this request.

But reading the thread and all our polite requests for women to be able to speak freely on issues affecting their lives is making me so angry. Cannot begin imagine this tone on a men’s dominated forum.

I have been only on this board for a year or so but so many amazing women posters have gone - leading voices who mumsnet should be proud to host,

The whole bannning women who are are critical of the rules or of the approach to moderation is not healthy. There are plenty of roles in real life where you have to tolerate criticism in the interests of wider society.
Not intending to derail, will leave it there!

Agree

Have @MNHQ responded to anyone on this?

Oh thats a shame, I really like reading her posts and she always comes across balanced IMO.

What was her crime, if I might ask..

what the what?

CertainHalfDesertedStreets is banned too now?

she's such a long term poster and normally so reasoned. I'm so sorry to hear that

..to ban women from expressing important viewpoints and asking important questions is to allow...etc...

They were banned because they flouted the rules and weren't prepared to abide by terms and conditions at the time - that's the message that I'm getting from Mumsnet.

Mumsnet have repeated (and repeated and repeated) the reason for banning a number of times on this thread, but still posters are arguing that they were banned for 'wrongthink' or for being controversial.

Mumsnet have done a fantastic job with this forum. They have earned credibility in the media and with the general public BECAUSE they have been prepared to enforce rules and have been seen to enforce rules. Without those rules, this forum wouldn't have survived a series of civil actions.

Give the Mods a break, people.

It's absolutely crucial that women are able to speak freely, using words that are accurate and which describe a situation accurately. To ban women from expressing important viewpoints and asking important questions is to allow a specific group of males with a particular agenda to dictate what women can and cannot say in public. I support the OP's request as I strongly believe some of the banned women should have their bans reconsidered and removed. In my opinion, to not do so is to seriously devalue Mumsnet as a forum for women to discuss urgent and important issues.

Agree with OP.

Thanks Beyond

Looking at the most recent Corbyn thread, if the self ID and antisemitism posts were premodded, he'd have been left with that one biscuit question...!!

I get that a lot of people asking about the same kind of thing can 'drown out' other questions (though in reality, guests just ignore the many same topic posts and cherrypick easier questions to answer) but honestly, I think this new 'rule' is about selfID/safeguarding/etc rather than anything else. I cannot imagine that if Corbyn stop shitting himself at the thought of MN and came on, multiple questions on antisemitism, for example would be censored.

Not sure how comfortable I am with effectively saying that ocne a few people have raised a question coming from one angle, anyone else who comes from that angle is punished. I guess I am thinking more of the NSPCC thread than the Creasy one there...given so many of the questions came from a (IMO obvious...) angle of 'safeguarding issues' and selfID is a huge problem right now fort safeguarding stuff, as much as the NSPCC wish to stick their heads in the sand to avoid answering questions on child protection.

IAm

I know her, but I don't know her IYSWIM.

You do know which one Stella Creasy is, right?