In wanting Mumsnet to help Judi Dench and Joanna Lumley

[GiantBranch]

Last week, Israel banned 37 international aid organisations from operating in the strip, including Oxfam, Save the Children and Medicine Sans Frontieres (MSF). MSF delivers one in three of Gaza’s babies, and experts warn that immediate action must be taken to prevent a catastrophe.

It has prompted more than 100 leading members of the arts, including Dames Judi Dench, Imelda Staunton, Joanna Lumley, Sienna Miller, Suranne Jones and singer Paloma Faith, to sign a letter urging popular online platform Mumsnet to join them in demanding urgent government action ensuring maternity care is accessible in Gaza.

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/gaza-israel-baby-birth-judi-dench-letter-b2896981.html

Nah. I am sticking to the OP's original stated topic, which is wanting Justine to respond in a specific way to this letter.

OP has tried to defend the means of delivering the letter with "what about the babies". I am saying that the means of delivering the letter is wrong, no matter what it is about.

More bamboozling.

‘In wanting Mumsnet to help’. That’s us.

The same.

"If you loved me, you'd do it."

"If you cared about the babies, you'd do it."

And the coercion sometimes carried out in public places where it was harder to say no.

Mumsnet isn't us, it's a company.

The letter literally starts "Dear Justine". It's to Justine, about a crisis caused by and enmeshed in the most complicated and politically-loaded conflict of this century. It is impossible for anyone to say anything about this conflict without being seen to take sides. One side's British supporters engage in violent destructive protests at the slightest provocation.

By publishing the letter, its authors have manufactured a situation in which saying "no" will be seen as taking a side, the side that risks the ire of the violent protestors. This is despite there being excellent reasons to say "no", one of which is "what good will it do?" and another of which is "without complete information as to why Israel is adopting this policy, it would be irresponsible of me to judge it".

At best, the authors didn't think it through. At worst, they understood this fully and are weaponising the risk to Justine. And that's why I see it as coercive control.

The letter, for those who have been commenting on it without reading it. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XJv6qEHsa8XAQHfc_wjzUvNTqI2uCrvU0k45uk8H-UM/mobilebasic

To clarify by Mumsnet I mean the community of posters not Justine as an individual although none of us know her views you are projecting

But the letter specifically addresses Justine as an individual

My post doesn’t

Ahhh, you've got to laugh at all this 'coercive control' 'bullying' nonsense.

Justine makes hundreds of thousands of pounds off the back of this site, she regularly sits with politicians to discuss the issues of the day and represent Mumsnet posters... and FWR posters are getting their tiny little violins out about the outrage that she might be asked to speak up for women and babies who are now at substantial risk of dying in war zone situations and make the case for getting aid through to them.

The world has turned on its head, that this is the prevailing sentiment on this 'forum for parents' now.

In which case, I refer you back to where I said that we can refuse to purchase Israeli goods and services and so hit them in the treasury. That is something that we can do, immediately.

Women make the majority of purchasing decisions for their households.

But how is contacting the owner of Mumsnet meant to make us all support their campaign?
Justine is not the head/leader or editor of Mumsnet, just the person with a clever business idea which makes enough money to keep hosting the web forum where 'we' can discuss whatever topics we want.
Other campaigns make it very clear they are requesting a way to interact with and persuade users as individuals.
I fed up of the continual emotional blackmail based on some supposed common maternal bond. Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir were mothers too.

See post from yesterday “we”

When the posters who have exited abusive relationships describe the decision to publish the letter as coercive control, we are likely to be right because we have direct personal experience of it and so know how to recognise it.

I already do this and so do many others, the recent ban on aid agencies needs a more targeted and direct approach as the situation for expectant mothers is urgent, boycotts take time

I don't claim to know Justine's views. What nonsense is this?

Coercive control is in the deed, not the target's perception of it.

I'm very late to this thread and I haven't read everything about this letter but have they also published open letters to

The CEOs of the massive and gobal companies that make:
Pampers
Huggies
All formula milks
Sudocreme and other nappy rash products
Gripe water and other colic products
Pram makers
Cot makers etc

or just the woman who runs a website whose members occasionally talks about such products?

You know Justine happily meets with prime ministers don't you?

She has spoken with Gordon Brown, David Cameron, Boris Johnson and Keir Starmer for starters.

She sounds pretty confident to get involved with the political sphere, doesn't she?

Yes Justine gets asked to represent the views of Mumsnet users to UK politicians about UK issues collated in various ways by MNHQ. What's her confidence at talking to politicians got to do with influencing foreign policy? Not a current area of campaigning or expertise at MNHQ.

This letter is not trying get Mumsnet users to back their cause, it's trying to use Justine as a figurehead before finding out if a majority of users support it.

Justine Roberts is a powerful and politically influential individual who has willingly stepped up to the plate in conversation with multiple prime ministers: she is no shrinking violet, and she is no more coercively controlled than any other public figure who is called upon to recognise their influence and to act.

This would in theory be a good idea, but you know for example sudocrem is on the Bds list so doubt they would support although it would be nice if they did

Sometimes, we can't do anything. Starmer has already tried to intervene, last summer, and Netanyahu doesn't listen.

"God grant me the serenity to accept what I cannot change, the courage to change what I can change, and the wisdom to know the difference."

She's politically influential in the way pollsters are. By gathering and presenting the views of the users surveyed.

What a cop out. I'm sure that's what a lot of German citizens told themselves in the 1930s too and I think quite a lot of them regretted that in the 1950s.

I think unfortunately you can shout about pregnant women needing help till the cows come home and some people will just continue harping on about celebrities and how they dislike this face and hate that face. The truth is they don't give a shit about pregnant women or children but they hide it by saying they cant support anything that whatsherface is endorsing.

Keir Starmer doesn't give a shit about pregnant women or children either but he does care about what his voters think so it makes sense to lobby his voters.