MNHQ here: should Mumsnet sign up as a member of a new campaign on children with disabilities?

[RowanMumsnet]

Hello

Mumsnet's been asked whether we want to sign up long-term as a supporter of the newly launched Disabled Children's Partnership. So, as ever with these things, we said we'd ask what our users thought.

Here's what the DCP has to say about itself:

"The Disabled Children’s Partnership (DCP) is an exciting new collaboration between 25 disability and children’s charities (listed below). As charities we have come together in the shared belief that health and social care services can and must be better if disabled children, young people and families are to get the support they need to enhance their life chances. The partnership was founded in 2015 to build on the excellent work of the Every Disabled Child Matters campaign."

"The partnership will work with disabled young people and their families to launch a major new campaign in England in 2017. The campaign will set out to challenge the political status quo and proactively raise the profile of the challenges that so many disabled children, young people and families face."

"The concerns, experiences and stories of disabled children, young people and their families will be at the forefront of the campaign, and therefore need to shape its development."

"Members Steering Group
· Action for Children
· Contact a Family (Chair)
· Mencap (Secretariat)
· National Autistic Society
· National Children’s Bureau
· Sense (Treasurer)
· Scope
· The Children’s Trust
· The Family Fund
· Together for Short Lives
· Well Child
Supporters
· Carers UK
· Carers Trust
· NDCS
· Ambitious About Autism
· Disability Challengers
· Working Families
· Whizz Kids
· Family and Childcare Trust
· Blind Children UK
· Rainbow Trust
· I CAN
· The Communications Trust
· The Seashell Trust"

We here at MNHQ think this looks like a good way to maximise campaigning impact on health and social care issues - but of course as ever we want to know what you think, so please do tell us whether you think we should sign up.

Thanks

I'm paraphrasing, it wasn't that blatant!

I'm paraphrasing, it wasn't that blatant!

It wasn't far off.

Actually maybe not anymore

They're strangled absent here...?

Strangled? Strangely!!

Yes to supporting the campaign.

They're probably hoping it will blow over.

On an individual level MNHQ have been very fair with me, but as a site it's not working for us. I like to think they've realised that what they are currently doing isn't working.

All we want to do is be able to enjoy the site as others do, without reading abusive, prejudicial and discriminatory comments about us / our families disabilities. It's not much to ask.

As for this idea of leaving hate speech up so we can educate.... Well it won't work, it hasn't worked and it will not work. Look at the last thread, these people don't want to be educated, they want to spout their hate speech.
You aint gonna change my opinon, it aint hate speech it's that truth. *

Those that do want to be educated are not going to write goady as fuck posts on AIBU, the part of the site with the heaviest traffic, which gets the biggest reation and seemingly the least amount of action by HQ.

--------

• I like to read the line above in a bad eastenders style cockney accent, shouting at the top of my voice, it adds to the effect.

I think the question about the campaign should be "Why would charities supporting children with disabilities want to align themselves with a site that allows disabilism and hate speech directed at the parents of and at children with disabilities?"
When you phrase the question that way then the answer is very obviously NO!

Yes definitely waiting until we give up and go away.

I was thinking that fanjo. Very quiet on this thread, the thread in site stuff and the multiple other threads with disabilism on them ( the fraud one, the labelling one, the child in the sauna, the turn taking in the park) all have had a disheartening lack of response of hq. Bar the usual trite linking to this is my child.

FWIW until hq get their arse in gear this campaign does not have my support.

The mn hq habit of linking to timc is rather a noying for me.
As my child is not included, oh they have thenright sn, but thay are an adult so cured.

Maybe HQ should seriously reconsider timc Samcro? I remember a lot of talk at the time about the strange fact that cute wee children with sn become invisible on reaching adulthood. It was suggested something might be done later I think, maybe I am remembering that wrong. Anyway most who haven't dealt directly with the provision drop off just don't realise how bad it is, it is very sad.

MN is a recognisable force in the UK press and holds sway. This is presumably why we are being asked to back this campaign - but it doesn't seem to fit what is needed.

Wouldn't it make more sense to redo timc to include all and create a zero tolerance agenda on the boards at the same time. No more debate - we won't sit at the back of the bus any longer.

This would be refreshing for us old timers and helpful to newcomers plus hopefully would have a ripple effect on the general public so society reverses the current ignorant trend to bully and instead replace suspicion with compassion? I know a lot of us hoped timc would lessen the prejudice and it has a bit but the offensive threads keep coming and being allowed to stand.

Something like "Our life is your life too". There are so many people dealing with sn at every stage of life, and so many have it to come. A lot of the people hating on the threads will be in the same boat when their elderly parents need care or someone in their family has an illness or accident with consequences - they just don't realise or equate yet. There is too much otherism, overcoming that is the key here.

bumping

You've constantly dismissed people concerns regarding language and behaviour towards those with disabilities on the talk section and I find it laughable you now think you can represent them.

• Reposting becuase Owllady said it first and MNHQ ignored it.

Absolutely not.

If mnhq is confused about why maybe they should try reading site stuff (or reply with something a bit more in depth than timc)

Hello

Obviously there are painful issues here and lots of strong feelings all round. Thanks very much to all who have expressed opinions either way on the issue of signing up to this campaign.

We're still keen to hear all views, so do please keep letting us know what you think. It being August, a few senior people are away at the moment and over the next couple of weeks, so as far as the Disabled Children's Partnership goes we will leave this thread running (and hopefully post up responses from the DCP to some of the questions raised earlier in the thread), and have a thorough review of sentiment early in September.

In terms of how MNHQ deals with reports of disablism: we should say for the record that (as KateMumsnet said in her post on the deleted thread) we at MNHQ do not think for a moment that autism is a 'lesser' disability or that some disabilities are more worthy of respect and consideration than others, and we're extremely sorry that anything we said led some of you to think otherwise.

For better or for worse (we think for better!) MN posters are a hugely wide and varied bunch. We all have areas in which our knowledge is imperfect and our understanding could be improved. As a rule, we believe that allowing people to ask genuine questions and start genuine debates is a critical and valuable function of Mumsnet - one which ultimately leads to better and deeper understanding and empathy all round.

For the record we felt (and still do) that the OPs of some of the threads under discussion here were genuine posters asking genuine questions, and their behaviour throughout the threads - up to and including apologising for any upset caused, and asking for threads to be removed because they were sorry for causing distress - was a long way from the behaviour of hateful goady fuckers.

If we ever have a sniff of an OP being a GF - if we ever believe that a poster is starting a discussion as a smokescreen for expressing or drawing out disablist views - the thread will be deleted and we're very happy to give disablism as the reason for deletion.

We know some of you disagree strongly with our interpretation of some of these recent threads and as ever we're genuinely sorry to be on the other side of an argument with you. As RebeccaMumsnet has said, these are some of the most difficult decisions we have to take and they cause more debate and head-scratching behind the scenes than you know!

All that said, when all the relevant bodies are back in the office after the school holidays we're sure this will be looked at in the round, and as ever we will want to know what you think.

In the meantime, please carry on discussion everything and anything you think is relevant here (and please do also keep letting us know your views about the campaign).

Thanks
MNHQ

Thank you for responding, Kate. I've asked elsewhere, including on the deleted thread, but I'll stick it here too as its relevant to your post...

Re "As a rule, we believe that allowing people to ask genuine questions and start genuine debates is a critical and valuable function of Mumsnet" and "If we ever have a sniff of an OP being a GF - if we ever believe that a poster is starting a discussion as a smokescreen for expressing or drawing out disablist views - the thread will be deleted and we're very happy to give disablism as the reason for deletion."
Do you have a specific strategy for dealing with disingenuous questioning? Would it perhaps be beneficial to start from a point of it being a GF (if the question is hurtful to other posters) and having to prove otherwise, rather than the other way around?
I'm thinking aloud here, open to that idea being criticised :)

@BeyondLovesSweetDee

Thank you for responding, Kate. I've asked elsewhere, including on the deleted thread, but I'll stick it here too as its relevant to your post...

Re "As a rule, we believe that allowing people to ask genuine questions and start genuine debates is a critical and valuable function of Mumsnet" and "If we ever have a sniff of an OP being a GF - if we ever believe that a poster is starting a discussion as a smokescreen for expressing or drawing out disablist views - the thread will be deleted and we're very happy to give disablism as the reason for deletion."
Do you have a specific strategy for dealing with disingenuous questioning? Would it perhaps be beneficial to start from a point of it being a GF (if the question is hurtful to other posters) and having to prove otherwise, rather than the other way around?
I'm thinking aloud here, open to that idea being criticised :)

It's an interesting idea and we'll feed that back in when people sit down to have a think in September. At the moment, if we get lots of reports that does already ping something up our radar and make us take a second (third, fourth) look and ask for other opinions if we're unsure.

WRT disingenuous posting we have a few rules of thumb:

what can we see in their posting history (under this and other names) - do they have a record of doing this? Have they started a conversation along these lines before?

are they engaging with other users and other points of view on the thread? Do they seem to be taking alternative viewpoints on board? Have they posted an OP and then not responded to subsequent posts?

do they acknowledge or apologise if other posters are upset by something they've said?

Thanks for coming onto the thread to discuss this a bit more.

"We know some of you disagree strongly with our interpretation of some of these recent threads and as ever we're genuinely sorry to be on the other side of an argument with you. "

It is an overused comparison here but the only one that conveys the level of insult that can be felt from some of these threads - replace every incidence of sn mention or suggestion with the appropriate racist comment and see how reasonable those arguments look then. All you are teaching is that suspicion, intolerance and prejudice are acceptable by being open for debate. There must be a better way.

"care don't stare" - remember?

Agree with viper. .it's not an argument with us. It's having hurt us quite a lot and allowed things to stand which hurt us. Like that the majority of kids diagnosed with ASD are just horrible children .