Langcleg is vindicated

So in the spirit of civility are you going to delete the posts where spurious accusations are made about someone who no longer has the right of reply?

‘YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet

@Whatisthisfuckery generally we ask that posters don't 'chase off' others with opposing views - we'd prefer it if there was a civilised discussion even if there'll never be an agreement. This is true across the site btw. We have deleted posts from threads that (on the polite end of the scale) have told users to 'pop off' or dismissed them as obvious trolls for having a different point of view. We're not and nor do we want to be an echo chamber. Of course, if you think someone is not a genuine poster, you can (as we always say) report them.’

But, @MNHQ have deleted many, hundreds of posts in fact, from women that aren’t remotely offensive, do not use abusive language and do not in any way bully other posters. There are literally hundreds of examples of this, we do keep records. The reason for these deletions has been shown to be part of a targetted campaign of key words and usernames of posters, especially on this particular board, that have been crawled for using an algorithm, then flagged up to its users who have then waged a campaign of reporting. It is @MNHQ who have made the decision to delete after receiving these reports, so your explanation does not tally with @MNHQ’s behaviour in practise.

This is why we are so unhappy. The fact that @MNHQ have repeatedly deleted posts that point out problems related to safeguarding has nothing to do with posters not tolerating other view points, it is that @MNHQ have decided that certain subjects will not be tolerated.

Whatisthisfuckery?

I don't know about the strikes so of course I can't comment on that, though people are saying she was targeted with multiple reports.
I do remember her swearing at Mumsnet and the moderators, in those last posts. I was shocked (it was not like her), but not surprised that she was gone the next morning.

My impression of this board is that all views are always welcome. Unfortunately the opposing view doesn't ever seem to stand up. No one chases then off, they usually flounce.

I absolutely agree that posts should be left on view. Or at least left in daylight. If corrections need to be added, so be it. That is why I have never asked or had a meltdown about someone's post remaining in place. I'm very tolerant like that. And I certainly never go around the net acting as a self appointed thought thug. Things which are offensive should be analysed and roundly critiqued. Je suis d'accord.

In my personal and very humble opinion, it is those whose personal interests are shown up for what they are by other perspectives and revelations or cannot withstand scrutiny who are most active in lobbying for censure when flaws in logic or falsehoods are exposed and they do not wish others to see this.

Just an example of things I can withstand. Recently someone posted that Ireland (as in the independent country of) had declared war on the UK in their lifetime. Now this is ignorant and a lie. I didn't ask for a lie to be taken down. I commented that it was a scurrilous accusation. Which it was.

‘Tanith

"Lang is greatly missed. She was a well informed, well intentioned, passionate and compassionate poster who had the grace to banter with people irrespective of political differences. I never saw her bullying anyone. Not her style."

From what I remember, she got very frustrated and angry on the last occasion and became abusive to the moderators. With her record of multiple reports from certain dubious sources, that acted as the final straw and I think that's why she was banned.
I don't remember her actually bullying anyone before and I did wince a bit when I saw her final messages because I guessed they wouldn't put up with it, though I thought it might be a suspension.
IIt seemed out of character on her part. I suppose anyone can be pushed so far.

It is a shame and I'd like to see her back. She knew what she was talking about.’

I have seen the chain of emails that lead to Lang’s departure and there was nothing abusive about them. Frustrated, yes, blunt, yes, but certainly not abusive.

It is also to note that Lang was nowhere near three strikes for deleted posts at this point, so her conduct on the forum was not the issue.

Given that neither her conduct on or off the boards was abusive, my only conclusion is that @MNHQ took offence at the views she was expressing, rather than the way she was expressing them. I wonder how this tallies with the idea of tolerating other peoples’ views?

I miss Lang desperately too.

I made the decision a couple of years ago to start talking on mumsnet and a bit elsewhere, about my experiences of being subjected to years of childhood sexual abuse. I felt that I could offer some insight into what grooming feels and looks like from the perspective of someone who was sexually abused and how statements about children's bodily autonomy and ability to consent can sometimes sound similar to things that my abuser would say or appear to believe. Also, how grooming, sexual abuse, self-blame and shame impact on personal boundaries and their formation, why single-sex spaces are desperately needed by girls and women who have been sexually abused and why the removal of these spaces is a safeguarding issue which directly and severely impacts the well-being of these vulnerable girls. I also started discussing how abused children may receive and interpret RSE lessons in a very different way than they were intended and how certain charities appear to be failing sexually abused children.

Lang's (and Rowantree's) determined and brilliant focus on safeguarding often gave me the space and confidence to discuss the above and I very much miss that too. I definitely find it harder to discuss certain things now without her, especially while I am also having to try and stick within the mumsnet rules and moderation decisions (which don't always seem to make sense) and also be aware that the things I discuss could both be triggering for some. I am also conscious that, providing too much revealing details could possibly have a different and concerning effect, on some lurkers who are not good people.

Lang has done so much to raise awarenesses and to inform on the subject of safeguarding children. There must be so many children who have been or will be protected from harm because of her contributions here. I am also very grateful to Mumsnet for this space and to the team at MNHQ and do realise that they were genuinely upset by Lang's ongoing contact with them, even though I don't think for one moment that that was ever Lang's intention - which I think was just concern about coercion and the impact that it was having on mumsnet discussions.

I really do hope that one day soon MNHQ would reconsider their permanent ban on Lang. There is so much work to be done on protecting children from harm and I do believe that mumsnet and Lang and many other posters are key in bringing about much needed change. I know that mumsnet is ultimately a business but its greatest legacy will be the good campaigns it has run and the space, even though flawed in places, it has provided and protected to enable incredibly important discussions which have often lead to real-life change to the well-being of women and children.

Weird isn’t it

Lang was knowledgeable, had a sense of humour and didn't suffer fools gladly. I can understand why that was hard to deal with in some quarters.

@MNHQ Can we please have some clarification as to what you mean by tolerating other peoples’ views? I think a lot of posters are unclear on this point as it would appear that some peoples’ views are more tolerated than others.

Long time lurker on this thread. Mumsnet is poorer for her absence.

"Lang is greatly missed. She was a well informed, well intentioned, passionate and compassionate poster who had the grace to banter with people irrespective of political differences. I never saw her bullying anyone. Not her style."

From what I remember, she got very frustrated and angry on the last occasion and became abusive to the moderators. With her record of multiple reports from certain dubious sources, that acted as the final straw and I think that's why she was banned.
I don't remember her actually bullying anyone before and I did wince a bit when I saw her final messages because I guessed they wouldn't put up with it, though I thought it might be a suspension.
IIt seemed out of character on her part. I suppose anyone can be pushed so far.

It is a shame and I'd like to see her back. She knew what she was talking about.

I have mixed feelings about MN around this issue.

On the one hand they have allowed the discussion over the years to continue to take place, and that has meant that gradually one by one women have been exposed to what this means for women and children.

Yes great, they could have shut it down altogether, they didn't and that has had fantastic consequences.

But, they have censored speech on the issue, prevented women from stating truths and biological facts, and shied away from the issue of child safeguarding, all for fear of offence.

So I'm grateful on one level, but so disappointed on another.

The could have been for MNHQ, and should have been, a show a strength for free speech, women's rights, and most importantly child safeguarding, with a refusal to back down to the intimidation, the advertisers, the worry about offence and kindness, and held firm in the onslaught.

They didn't.

As this all emerges, we will remember MN as the place where most of us discovered the issue, but also MN as the place where child safeguarding was too 'controversial' to discuss.

Oh, I must correct that. The person I mentioned above is P. Bunce. Not P. Bounce as appeared. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea máxima culpa. Hair shirt on hand.

Yes whistle blowers acting on Safeguarding concerns are rarely welcome. Those at the top of an organisation will minimise it and the whistle-blower often ejected unceremoniously. It has happened to me with regard to raising a red flag. Drummed out but vindicated later, after others had been damaged by the very issue I raised. No apology, nothing. I wouldn't go back even if invited. I raised the same red flag as LC, but longer ago.

tolerating other people's views even if you strongly disagree with them

Sounds good. Allow all political views, let them be debated in the open. Only delete posts for abuse, (genuine) libel and spam.

Is refuting or objecting to someone making unsubstantiated comments about user who doesn't have the right to reply now "intolerant"?

tolerating other people's views even if you strongly disagree with them

Yes, great so no censorship on the boards then?
I think nearly all the posters on FWR are in agreement with that.

It's those reporting and MNHQ's capitulation that doesn't support that.

Seeing as I've never reported a post, I do tolerate all views.

which means tolerating other people's views even if you strongly disagree with them?

What does this actually mean in practice?

Are we now being told we can't reply to people to voice any disagreement?

Does this mean no more deletions and strikes or is it just some who have to tolerate other peoples views?

P. Bounce,

I don't know if that was a typo or deliberate but it's perfect.

Haven't heard about MaryZ in yonks. Under what name was the goodbye account?

I also got a strike for talking about the exact same person Cailleach1