@JustineMumsnet please consider reinstating LangCleg after a temporary suspension. It would help so many of us. Mumsnetters please sign!

I have been insanely busy and completely missed whatever happened to Lang

I do not know her at all personally but found her posts intelligent, polite, considered and thoughtful.

In these insane days where thinking is prohibited we need all the good women capable of retaining the capacity to think and who have the courage to speak out.

I would respectfully support the calls to reinstate Lang

Her posts are still up there for anyone to read - she didn't suffer fools gladly but she was civil and kept mostly to the rules, because she wanted to keep talking. Who wanted to stop her and why? That's the real story for me.

^^this

What I don't think we should ever stop talking about is how a poster who was knowledgeable about safeguarding was targeted and constantly reported.

Indeed, and the fact that some people still so desperately want us not to talk about that is exactly why I'm not going to stop talking about it. They have very much underestimated how important this issue is to many women.

I confess I was shocked to hear today that the MN admin team does not consider themselves to have any safeguarding responsibility with regard to suicide discussions on threads so long as false information is refuted by content provider.
How can that be?

This is such ridiculous ban. I've been waiting for mumsnet to see sense and am still waiting.

Signed. Her voice is wise and extremely important. (I dunno why she was banned?)

girl I think best to leave it for longer... no matter how politely you worded it, I fear it may be construed as rude (as Lang’s communications were) and you would risk being banned yourself..

I think discussions has been moving to other platforms for a while now (which is a pity for we who like the MN format). But prob inevitable where there is a genuine philosophical divide between staff and user base (of FWR, that is)

I still want Lang back on these boards. She is brilliant and I miss her insights.

Reposting from the 6th Feb:

UPDATE
I've had a final response from MN:

We're afraid that we won't be reinstating LangCleg's account.
Best,
MNHQ

I'm not going to challenge, as I know they've read all the threads, and we can't assume that this isn't Langs choice

I'm not sure if MN are still reading these threads, or would now be more open to revisiting, but their last message to me on the 6th seemed final. A new request might be worthwhile?

Signed

Signed.

I miss LangCleg.

She is so clever and funny and expressed my thoughts and had it all typed up before if even worked them out myself.

It is quite clear why she was targetedThere are many who want us to take our eyes off safeguarding. It won't work. This is a site for parents built on women sharing. Child protection ain't going nowhere.

And the other lesson I have taken from this is to do with why the mods were getting all those reports about Lang in the first place. Her posts are still up there for anyone to read - she didn't suffer fools gladly but she was civil and kept mostly to the rules, because she wanted to keep talking. Who wanted to stop her and why? That's the real story for me.

Agreed, Bewilderness, it’s best to minimise interactions as much as possible.

I remember Lang used to have quite friendly exchanges with mods in-thread (offering wine? I think). It all seems quite incongruous.

But we’re on notice now, so best to go low or no contact.

MNHQ confirmed she wasn't abusive, Saverland, merely rude.

The lesson to the rest of us is that when a member of the admin team deletes a comment and does not answer when you ask what guideline you violated, it is viewed as rude to give them the benefit of the doubt and to ask a second or even a third time.
Sometimes they will explain, after the second or third request, and other times they will ban you as they did Lang.

People will talk about Lang and safeguarding as long as they want. Get over it.

But we do have to accept that MN is a commercial, for-profit enterprise. It exists to make money - not facilitate safeguarding discussions.

If safeguarding discussions with a certain poster are making staff miserable (for whatever reason) it makes commercial sense to ban that poster. Done.

We need to not email MN or @ them on this issue as they are likely to regard it as rude and ban us.

LangCleg wrote Thu 21-Feb-19

"How did the scandal of TV entertainers grooming and exploiting children get so bad before anything was done?

How did the scandal of Catholic priests grooming and exploiting children get so bad before anything was done?

How did the scandal of on-street gangs grooming and exploiting children get so bad before anything was done?

Because if you create a sacred caste of any group and silence anyone asking questions about individuals on behalf of the sacred caste, abusers will see, infiltrate, and groom and exploit children. That''s how."

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3512177-Julia-Long-asking-Munro-Bergdorf-about-child-exploitation?pg=12

Women have always found ways to make their voices heard

I'm not sure that's true, actually.

To....not so

What I don't think we should ever stop talking about is how a poster who was knowledgeable about safeguarding was targeted and constantly reported

Yep

Even without the safeguarding bit to be fair so some of the regulars who have been targeted

And what we will keep on asking is why a poster who was generally civil and who understood safeguarding would attract as many reports as Lang did.

This ^^

Women have always found ways to make their voices heard and always will.
Yes indeed and, whether Lang returns or not, we will keep on being heard on here too, thank you. And what we will keep on asking is why a poster who was generally civil and who understood safeguarding would attract as many reports as Lang did.

Nobody believes that. Even the ones that say they do.

Just because something's legal doesn't make it true. Or moral. Or acceptable.