Safe schools alliance

@MNHQ Please can you come back and explain how the posts by SSAUK broke your talk guidelines, or reinstate them if it turns out they didn't?

BernardBlacksWineIcelolly - that's what I'm seeing too. Sorry MNHQ. But doubling down in this instance isn't a good look.

I can see clear parallels between the situation MNHQ have found themselves in and the situation the National Theatre have found themselves in

In both cases they complied with an unreasonable demand that was made by a person who wants to control the behaviour of others, without really assessing whether complying with that demand was a good idea

It seems likely that the characteristics of the person making the demand were a factor in this unquestioning compliance

now they are in a situation where they feel they have to defend the thing they did at the request of someone else

there are even parallels in the way the statements they put put do not all address all the issues and leave those reading them

I (and many women on here) have removed my ad blocker for Mumsnet as we so appreciate a site that stands for democratic values, free speech and promotes the rights of women and safety of children. (old soft and cuddly right wing supremacists that we are)

I would happily do the same but free speech is not something that I think mn stands for any more. It's a commercial site with commercial interests and it's own agenda which stands in the way of free speech much like other social messenger sites.

Oh and I’m really shocked to learn that Murray was at Mearns Academy which is uncomfortably close to where my kids go to school. I think SSAUK resources are going to be very useful to me

It’s utterly sinister the way TRAs pounce on anyone trying to promote safeguarding and even more baffling that mnhq would go along with them. SSAUK are not selling anything, not fundraising and there is no petition it’s simply a useful and balanced resource for parents. What on Earth are mnhq doing taking down that thread??

Agree dumonde. I am part of SSAUK and am happy to share but felt we wanted a SSAUK presence on Mumsnet. We are still confused as to how our one post could be construed as spamming the boards for promotional purposes. And please don't feel bad @Popchyk It was a lovely thought.

And this rule could be gotten around by SSA simply using a nondescript username and posting as if in a personal capacity.

Basically this rule encourages posters to be less honest. Not that I think for one minute the SSA would do that, but that’s the knock on effect of this kind of rule.

Bad times, Mumsnet.

yes, plenty have people have posted about their websites on MN - like the excellent wecantconsenttothis.uk for example, so this action by MNHQ seems strangely inconsistent and leaves me very

@MNHQ Please can you come back and explain your previous post? None of us can make head or tail of it.

Is it that no one must refer to a website that they have a connection with? Sounds tricky to enforce, but okay. Or is there a maximum number of times - once is fine, twice is ban-worthy?

Or is it that any thread where someone comments "you should do a crowdfunder" will be deleted in its entirety?

It would be useful to know which of those is the blanket rule (or is it all of the above?) and you should probably broadcast it site-wide, as it affects all members.

I feel a bit responsible for this.

I replied to the initial thread yesterday saying that this was a very welcome resource and that perhaps they might in the future consider a crowdfunder in order to raise funds for materials or whatever.

SSA did not in any way suggest that they were looking for donations.

I had thought that MNHQ had become a bit wiser to being manipulated by the gender extremists, but maybe it's a lesson that they need to keep learning.

@JoMumsnet This decision makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. There was no 'spam' as it was the first post announcing an extremely important and useful resource for parents, on a parenting forum. It doesn't reach the definition of 'spam' by any stretch of the imagination. Neither was it promoting any products, services, petitions. They didn't ask for money, there is no crowd funder. This strikes me as abuse of a sensible rule regarding people using MN for marketing purposes, for ideological purposes. What the hell is going on behind the scenes there?! You will only embolden authoritarian and extremist trans activists with crappy, poorly thought through, unevidenced decisions like this.

I saw the original thread last night - it was swooped on by EeveePHD ( in much the same way as the first page of this thread) . Then it went poof. Zapped.

The same OP was also posted in the Staffroom. It was there for longer but has now gone too.

I’m sure Mumsnet supports its users sharing knowledge and expertise on safeguarding. IFWR is particularly interested in safeguarding right now and at any given time there are likely to be a number of threads discussing different aspects of it. Information available on Safe Schools Alliance UK is therefore likely to be relevant to more than one thread. It wouldn’t be spamming to mention it in those circumstances?

Personally I have no involvement with SSAUL but I’m impressed by their achievements and resources.

I think HQ have been misinformed by Twitter stirrers

I think that's absolutely right. For whatever reason, this board attracts some pretty obsessive attention from some people who will do anything to misrepresent what we say and shut us down. it looks like MNHQ don't always take that into account

They're not spamming the boards.

I think HQ have been misinformed by Twitter stirrers.

Does this mean that if Man Friday was to start today, the group would be banned from posting?

This is a blanket rule
I'm sorry @JoMumsnet, but what is? I read what you wrote but I still don't understand.

It seems to come down to the difference between posting the odd link (okay) and spam(ming) the boards with links (not okay).

And you think SSAUK were spamming the boards - how do you define spamming the boards? How many links are included in the odd link? Did SSAUK even include a clicky link in their OP?

Or is it simply that no members are allowed to mention their own website? If that is the rule, it would be useful for you to spell it out in the talk guidelines.

I would like to know exactly how one thread announcing the launch of a website breaks these guidelines. Could you please explain further.

we'll delete anyone's attempts to spam the boards with links, as a way of promoting their own product, services, survey or e-petition

One thread does not really meet the definition of spam.

What product? What services? What survey? What e-petition?

The first two of these surely refer to commerce. This site is not commercial. The third to a personal benefit (recruiting participants to benefit the creator's project). This site is a resource for parents: using it confers no benefit on the creators. There is no petition.

The link seems to be working Ok for me

safeschoolsallianceuk.net/

Of course don’t click on it if you are against safeguarding.

But we'll delete anyone's attempts to spam the boards with links, as a way of promoting their own product, services, survey or e-petition, as it annoys our members.

It doesn’t actually. Nobody who is a genuine user is annoyed that a group that DOES NOT FUNDRAISE is sharing free information on child safeguarding. They’re not promoting a product or service!

Mumsnet, it seems you are not being transparent with us.
Why not?

but we have to apply our guidelines consistently

And yet you do not do this at all. It depends on the moderator.

Lang the account is still banned. And MN did not contact us until after they banned us.