To think wtf?

[hardyloveit]

Not sure if there has been a post on this but just seen this on the daily fail.

Trans activist wins battle to force Mumsnet to reveal name of 'troll'
mol.im/a/6905503

Hopefully that link works. What is going on!!!

FFS. Stop the world.

There's a thread in Feminist Chat. This is Stephanie Hayden, a serial TRA litigator. Stephanie was banned from MN for trolling last week.

Hayden and their latest case
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3554306-Hayden-and-their-latest-case

Yes I've been reading all her shit in the papers. It seems she tries to do this a lot! Bit worrying MN will have to give those details out.

Thank you for the link to the other post will have a read

I saw this in the early hours and wondered why I’d not seen it on AIBU yet.

I also had to check the date of the article in case it was a lingering April Fools joke.

Bit worrying MN will have to give those details out.

They've said they will contest the order if a user asks them to. The person Hayden is seeking details for used an email address from a Swiss company that won't give up data to anyone and gave fake details. So they're probably not too bothered.

Am I reading this correctly?

MN has to reveal the full legal name of the 'troll' by 4 p.m. How will they do this? I didn't have to provide my full legal name when signing up to MN, just my email address.

Do they mean the email address and then they will obtain name from service provider or IP address to obtain name and address?

They can't get the name from that specific email service provider as they won't give it out, and aren't based in the UK.

People shouldn't troll. They deserve to have their name given out.
This doesn't mean I necessarily sympathise with Hayden, btw.

On the caption she wrote: 'The days of defaming, abusing, and harassing transgender people on Mumsnet behind the cloak of anonymity are over.

Good! There are way too many biggots on this forum, but like racsism it will be driven underground.

People shouldn't troll. They deserve to have their name given out.

Is it a troll when the person only posted links to the misdeeds of the person in question [ie factually based links]?

What is a troll? Are we now saying that anyone that points another person in the direction of someone else's history is a troll?

Or is it only when those people are changing their names and trying to hide their past, and someone points their past out, that it is a troll? In which case, the DBS system is trolling people left right and centre.

When that person in question is STILL harassing people and making golf club based threats to anyone who steps out of line [when their previous history involves attacking someone, who later died, with a golf club]...are we now not allowed to mention the golf clubs [that they keep mentioning themselves]?

I don’t get the outrage. Someone made defamatory statements on this site. Those comments weren’t relating to gender (contrary to what you say), but rather were allegedly defamatory accusations of criminal behaviour. Defamation is illegal. You aren’t allowed to hide behind an anonymous user name to get away with illegal behaviour.

It’s perfectly easy to have a debate about transgenderism, including expressing negative views, without crossing the line into defamation, harassment etc. I don’t see why we can’t agree that the debate has no place for these things, from either side.

There's the problem. Does this count as trolling, as you say, sackrifice?

contained claims of criminality that Ms Hayden said were defamatory, reported The Times, so obtaining the user's name could allow her to pursue legal action.
How can it be defamatory if it's a fact? Or does her criminal record not stand because she has changed genders?

I like Sali Hughes, I am really surprised she is supporting this person. The comments between Hayden and Harrop re golfing were vile, the jokey threats of violence etc.

Hayden is saying “i have no current criminal convictions” , what does that mean ? Do convictions lapse ?

The information that Steph is unhappy about is freely available on the Companies House website. The posts stated facts that are in the public domain.
Steph wanted to take legal action against Mumsnet and has a piece of paper that proves that they have.

There is something called current convictions as it's normally on job application forms but I've no idea what it means etc
I used my real email address when signing up feel a bit stupid now

Most convictions become spent after a certain length of time.

www.nacro.org.uk/resettlement-advice-service/support-for-individuals/disclosing-criminal-records/rehabilitation-offenders-act/

Convictions can be spent so that maybe what she means.

But in court spent convictions are referred to all the time.

It feels like this debate is going to dangerous places, and this activist has no concept of anyone else's feelings or lived mattering.

Hayden is saying “i have no current criminal convictions” , what does that mean ? Do convictions lapse ?

Yes they become 'spent', but murder is never spent, along with some other convictions.

But that is only spent in as much as you don't need to mention them to an employer (Rehabilitation of Offenders Act), they still existed.

Current convictions - things not considered "spent" under the terms of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. There are lots of rules about how long it takes for a conviction/caution to be considered spent, depends on the age you were at the time of the crime/caution and the type of offence. Spent convictions don't have to be declared and don't appear on a Basic DBS form. They are still on the police record though and are never wiped.

Spent convictions may appear on an enhanced DBS check, if the Police think they are relevant.