Langcleg is vindicated

I'm not sure it's as easy to form groups now, everyone's too wary from what I can tell.

Course, if mumsnet decided to have an amnesty, Lang could be invited back!

It is understandable that people name change once they have been targeted and deleted a few times. Why wait for the ban hammer.

Is anyone in touch with these women in real life? I'd love to be in touch with them and happy to DM someone my real credentials so that I can be vetted. I learned so much and wish to keep learning.

How could I trust the person I DM though? It's so confusing. If anyone here knows how you've managed to stay in touch offline please let me know how.

Lots of people name change on MN, it is allowed
Lots of GC posters do too

Lots of people name change - this demonstrates one of the problems with doing so, even if it's for good reason.

I found Lang deeply empathic when I spoke about the experience of having a loved one who was extremely vulnerable.

I think there's always a kickback against safeguarding. We see it with how poorly whistleblowers are treated. There's always some who take it personally. It's just at the moment we also have large organisations who should know better (hello NSPCC and Tavistock) buy into the false notion that it would be offensive to practice safeguarding in certain areas.

I'd like to think society will one day learn. But I'm no longer convinced in the forward motion of genuine progressiveness so perhaps it won't.

It's only bullying if I strongly disagree!

I miss LangCleg.

If you agree with me about something we've both repeatedly seen happen it's proof that FWR is an echo chamber. So please could you disagree with me, dial?

No wait, disagreement is bullying...

Fortunately Lang's expertise is being sought elsewhere, and those who want to target her have no way of doing so, nor keep track of what she's doing.

That's good to know, thanks!

you would think by now that only allowing reports from people who are members, have been for a qualifying period and who post would be a given....

Safeguarding is something that is targeted. We've seen that this week with the scumsnet algorithms. And yesterday the court hearing of the lack of safeguarding at the Tavistock. Even their own safeguarding lead is taking them to court ffs.

Safeguarding is quite complex, and interacts with several other disciplines. Lang was an invaluable source of information.

And she was never wrong.

That's why she was targeted and reported.

It's always interesting to note who actually contributes to safeguarding issues on these threads, and who just wants to diss.

Fortunately Lang's expertise is being sought elsewhere, and those who want to target her have no way of doing so, nor keep track of what she's doing.

You would've thought they'd have learnt by now.

I agree too.

Not "piling" just agreeing.

I've never been in a pile on, but willing to give it a shot

Occasionally I disagreed with her and I do remember wincing once or twice when she wrote something that felt a bit patronising.

But that's very distinct from this image which some people seem to want to convey about her, like she was some merciless tyrant who set out to destroy anyone.

She was correct in her analyses, and she was ruthlessly targeted by outside reports (and some "insiders") for a reason.

I'd say I agree with you DeaconBoo but wouldn't want to be accused of a pile on!

Quaagars has a long history of derailing threads with sniping but rarely offers any concrete opinions or discussion points because they are often shown to be logically muddled, without evidence, or they throw a tantrum saying that gentle suggestions to read up on certain topics they have shown to misunderstand is bullying or "patronising".

I must emphasise that this is just my opinion, lol, it's a free country.

Lang has never bullied anyone in any posts I've seen, and I've seen a lot! Even you, Quaagars... unless she told you to "go well"?

It’s fine, I’m sure Quaagars is going through their library of screenshots to find an example of Lang’s bullying as we speak. I’m sure they’ll be back very soon to back up their assertions.

I miss LangCleg. I miss that she spoke up for children and women. I miss her safeguarding expertise.

Disagreement is not necessarily confrontation or bullying (as I try to teach my snowflake teens ). From her posts, I don't believe Lang ever bullied anyone.

2024? 2014.

LC was passionate and posted with clarity and expertise.
I feel very sad for those who can't deal with posters like LC, Datum, Michelle at al.
For me they are the beating heart of the board.

This board has still been a place where consciousness has been raised on what is happening to directly damage and weaken safeguarding of children.

In 2024, I remember reading the stuff on Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) and how they piggybacked on an organisation called the National Council for Civil Liberties ) NCCL. Again, currently, I think many more organisations are not vigilant and are silent on child safeguarding as they can't or don't care enough to analyse properly what is 'progressive' with what is dodgy.

I remember reading correspondence from the era that this so called 'progressive' org sheltered the Paedophile Information Exchange under their umbrella and in doing so could be perceived to be giving it their imprimatur or stamp of approval. If not going that far, they certainly didn't throw them out.
Even then there were letters and warnings from people who weren't blinded by the fashionable aspect and saw this course for what it was; as an avenue for child endangerment and exploitation.

Having been aware about what happened before, I do think some political parties and politicians are complicit by their silence and refusal to even look beyond spin. Despite the issues being raised. They don't get excused in my book. Even schools and the police, for goodness sakes. Children's charities, too. It is more than not being aware. I perceive it as unwillingness to look at it straight on.

A 1970s campaign to lower the age of consent has returned to haunt Harriet Harman, Patricia Hewitt and Jack Dromey. But in such a liberal climate, it wasn't hard for a small, determined group to exploit a commitment to free speech

www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/02/how-paedophiles-infiltrated-the-left-harriet-harman-patricia-hewitt

Does slagging someone off when they don't have the right to respond come under the bullying umbrella?

Asking for a friend...

They need to realise they’re only here because mumsnet allows them to be.

True. But it’s a symbiotic relationship. Mumsnet is the successful business it is, because users freely contribute content. It’s that user-base which attracts advertisers and researchers. And FWR is one of the busiest boards on MN.