Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

MNHQ .. Can we talk about disability bashing?

921 replies

Brownsugarshortbread · 05/06/2011 23:58

Over the years i have posted on and enjoyed MN.
Sadly there seems to be a growing culture of it being okay to have a go at disabilities, those who claim DLA and those who's children have 'invisable' disabilities such as ADHD and ADD.
The terms 'freak' and 'scrounger' have been batted around and comments from some posters IMO certainly boarder on harrassment and discrimination.

When certain posts or posters have been reported, some have been removed, yet a lot haven't.

And while I agree with free speech, these types of comment or reaction to these comments, are not an education for those bigoted posters. Nor do those whose lives are touched by disability wish to be used to educate those posters.

Disability Harassment

is unwanted behaviour based on disability,
impairment or additional need. Such behaviour may include comments that are patronising or objectionable to the recipient or which creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment for people with disabilities. Disability harassment includes inappropriate reference to disability, unwelcome discussion of the impact of disability, refusal to work with and exclusion of people with disabilities from social events or meetings.

OP posts:
Peachy · 10/06/2011 11:21

fair enough Aitch; what I assumed but couldn;t know for sure.

I agree about the message deleted for..... but I also think there is a mileage in zero tolerance for deleted posts by people who are newly registered or ahve name changed to post; MN of course tell the difference. You cahnge name, you get deleted for hate words, you piss off.

AitchTwoOh · 10/06/2011 11:26

i'd be sad to see name-changing go but i think it may be time...

HelenMumsnet · 10/06/2011 11:42

Hello. Thank you all for your suggestions and comments on this thread.

We wanted to make sure we came back to you about your key concerns.

We agree that, in our Talk Guidelines, we were not as explicit as about our stance on disablist comments as we were on, say, our stance on racist comments, so we have now tweaked the Guidelines to make that clearer. Thanks for drawing our attention to this.

Generally speaking, we would, of course, routinely delete posts that contain words such as 'mong' or 'retard' but we do think context is important here. In a situation where a poster is genuinely (as far as we can tell) seeking a discussion about the offensiveness/acceptability of a certain word or phrase ? as in the "catch like a spastic" thread ? we wouldn't delete because the context is all about what's offensive, rather than being offensive - and we can all learn from that.

We understand completely what many of you are saying about how tiring/irritating it can be to "educate" the ignorant but we do still believe that engaging an ignorantly (rather than deliberately) offensive poster in discussion is better than censoring the discussion completely.

As Justine posted earlier on in this thread, "Sharing experiences does have an effect. I absolutely know to be the case this from the amt of posters who've told me that MN has transformed the way they judge other parents, particularly those parents who have children with special needs."

But we do see how our "best to educate" reply may perhaps sound patronising to those of you who've been posting on the boards for years - and that's certainly not our intention. We will work on a better way of expressing that.

Hope that makes things a little clear.

We do want to say how much we value all Mumsnetters who post in our Special Needs section and who have contributed so much to making Mumsnet such a valuable source of advice and support for any parent with a child with special needs. The last thing we'd want is for you to think we don't place as much value on your opinions and concerns as on those of other Mumsnetters - that couldn't be further from the truth.

Shoesytwoesy · 10/06/2011 11:44

so what happens to people like me? I namechanged (ok to a similar one) as I was hounded of the sn topic, one of the things the person did was search old posts, so I name changed, it was either that or leave, a lot of people name change for good reason.

Shoesytwoesy · 10/06/2011 11:46

i xposted, glad the to see the tweak but very sad to see no other change, if you still think the catch like a spastic thread was ok.

AitchTwoOh · 10/06/2011 11:46

what about the idea of making the deletion comment more nuanced? i think the 'possible breach of DDA' etc would be a good shot across the bows.

growingstrawberries · 10/06/2011 11:50

absolutely agree on different "message deleted" posts.

might make people sit up and take notice if "message deleted for racism" or "message deleted for contravening DDA" was posted under their talkname (obviously would have to be coupled with a namechange change - maybe a policy of "outing" someone who namechanges to troll/be offensive? that would still leave the namechange facility for messing around at Christmas, or on Apprentice threads (BusinessBarbie, anyone?) etc

Shoesytwoesy · 10/06/2011 11:56

have to say I am disapointed, I even went back to look at the thread(the catch one0 and I still can't see why it was allowed. so apart from a tweak which will only work if used, nothing has changed,

HelenMumsnet · 10/06/2011 12:03

@AitchTwoOh

what about the idea of making the deletion comment more nuanced? i think the 'possible breach of DDA' etc would be a good shot across the bows.

We could certainly have a think about that.

Have to say we all chuckled enviously at another forum the other day where the mods posted: "Reason for deletion: cheeky fucking spammer" Grin

Mouseface · 10/06/2011 12:06

YY Growingstrawbs

I think it HAS to made very clear as to WHY a post has been deleted. It's time that MNHQ took a firm stand on what is and is not acceptable and made that public for all to see.

And I'm sorry but that thread title should not be allowed to stand. I still think that MNHQ should have contacted the poster (who mysteriously vanished) and asked her to change it to 'DP has just said something that has upset me (warning - disablist), I need advice on how to deal with it'

Or words to that effect.

As I have said before, if that was the case, MNers could then choose whether or not to open that thread. But as it was, the offence was caused by the title itself.

And in a topic that you wouldn't expect to find such a word in the first place.

AitchTwoOh · 10/06/2011 12:10

YOU READ OTHER TALKBOARDS??!

growingstrawberries · 10/06/2011 12:16

there's probably too much offensive language on this one, aitch Wink

Peachy · 10/06/2011 12:21

I reckon there's a forum for forum owners.

'AIBU to delete anyone who complains about our deletion speeds/'

'WWYD if some contentious author started to claim damages against your site?'

'How much wine is it OK for a mod to drink before they are technically not up to deletion?'

I think they also have special emoticons, so when i post a bum appears to signify sanctimoiuos arse; when certain others who have been discussed between myself and MN post a troll flashes on the screen. And when P&T threads appear an image of someone slapping their forehead is immediately apparent on teh screen of every employee.

I'm right aren't I? Wink

HelenMumsnet · 10/06/2011 12:23

@Peachy

I reckon there's a forum for forum owners.

'AIBU to delete anyone who complains about our deletion speeds/'

'WWYD if some contentious author started to claim damages against your site?'

'How much wine is it OK for a mod to drink before they are technically not up to deletion?'

I think they also have special emoticons, so when i post a bum appears to signify sanctimoiuos arse; when certain others who have been discussed between myself and MN post a troll flashes on the screen. And when P&T threads appear an image of someone slapping their forehead is immediately apparent on teh screen of every employee.

I'm right aren't I? Wink

You might be. I couldn't possibly comment... Wink

Peachy · 10/06/2011 12:24
Grin
complicatedsituation · 10/06/2011 12:25

I have been following this thread but not previously posted. I have also namechanged but only because what I am about to post will include some identifying information. In other persona I post on the SN, legal and employment sections of the board, and occasionally chat and local. I namechange to split my personal from my professional selves. In this instance they coincide.

I am a lawyer who sometimes specialises in equality, human rights etc. I have worked with the DDA in employment, facilities and education since it was introduced, I now sometimes advise on the equality act.

I have a son who has spastic diplegia CP.

Im my opinion I do not think that the OP in the "catch like a spastic thread" did not breach any part of the Equalities Act. It was not in my opinion hate speech, nor was it harassment on the grounds of disability. I would certainly not take a case on which said that post had been in breach.

Equally I would not take a case where somewhere started an OP with my DP said I behaved like a cunt or even a twat. Despite the fact that language is arguably sexist. I don't believe such posts should be deleted either.

If however the posts said you were a spastic as a term of abuse, or you were a cunt as a term of abuse I would take the case, and I believe that such posts would be deleted assuming they were reported.

Context is important in questions where equality is at stake.

When I first read the catch like a spastic thread it I found it mildly offensive. If only because I was genuinely surprised that there was even a question over this.

However when considering this time is also important. Discrimination on the grounds of sex is prohibited just like discrimination on the grounds of disability is prohibited. In my professional view what is different is the length of time that the legislation has been in place. Sex discrimintation was prohibited in 1975, Disability discrimination in 1996. That's 21 years of differential treatment depending on the protected characteristic. Those 21 years make a real difference in socities attitudes and the continued need to educate about what is and is not acceptable.

I agree with Justabout's list, but also understand Mumsnet HQ's stance given I geniunely do not think that OP breached the Equalities Act. It doesn't mean I like the thread and the comments though, but then again I don't like beng told that everyone ought to drive and women are letting the side down if they don't. I don't like all the comments from women moaning on about how fed up they are of being pregnant when I only managed about 6 months before my son was actually born. I can find that mildly offensive too but I think it is ok to learn just not to read the threads which are going to offend where they don't breach the law, which is in my opinion in a state of flux and conflict given rights do inevitable conflict with each other (to freedom of speech and prevention of hate crime, in respect of the right to privacy, in respect of sexual oreintationd sicrimiantion and religious discrimination where you just cannot please everyone in every protected group and the law has a very difficult balance to try and tread).

I do think clamping down on the posts where people use Mong, spaz, retard as an abuse has in the past been too lax though and am pleased this is being brought to the fore as a general discussion.

TheNinjaGooseIsOnAMission · 10/06/2011 12:28

peachy Grin

mnhq, changing the guidelines is great but I'm not sure many people regularly read them so won't notice a change until it's pinted out to them?

Shoesytwoesy · 10/06/2011 12:29

Mouseface thanks you, I was starting to feel like a lone voice. tehre was no need for the s word to be in the title, the op knew it was offensive, so I cannot understand why it was left.

Mamaz0n · 10/06/2011 12:29

I very much agree with the different post deletion messages. In fact i am sure i mentioned it way back at the beginning.

But i don't think"possible breach of DDA" is right.

I don't want it to fall under bureaucratic red tape. I dont want ignorant bigots to convince themsleves that HQ agree with them really but their hands are tied by those wooly doogooders threatening them with libel suits.

HelenMumsnet · 10/06/2011 12:33

@TheNinjaGooseIsOnAMission

peachy Grin

mnhq, changing the guidelines is great but I'm not sure many people regularly read them so won't notice a change until it's pinted out to them?

Well, we're pointing out the change here, for a start.

And please take it as read that we regularly point posters to our Talk Guidelines when we're mailing them about posts of theirs we have noticed or deleted.

Peachy · 10/06/2011 12:37

Complicated I am sure you are right but it doesn;t mean MNHQ could not amend workding to ''DH said i catch like a S'- and notify OP to say it has been done.

Becuase actually that helps everybody: the OP will get far better advice, ewer people will be offended,, MNHQ's work level managing reports will shrink..... and people will get a visual reminder of the fact that it is offensive.

I think OP in that thread was naive but innocnet, and action to minimise that is not hard.

Mamazon how about 'thris post ahs been deleted becuase it breeches MNs guidelines about acceptable words. it may also be a breech of the DDA'?

I agree about the wooliness of wording but equally when a wanker is about it doesn;t hurt to remind that there is backup action available in law.

AitchTwoOh · 10/06/2011 12:44

i take your point, mamazon, but i don't think it's a particularly good one. mentioning the law puts it out there that there is a legal basis for their actions. saying 'MN deletes for racism/disablism' (putting the judgement in the hands of MN like they're our mums) would lead to lots of 'oh no it wasn't' 'oh yes it was' back and forth.

fascinating post, complicatedsituation.

Mamaz0n · 10/06/2011 12:47

I am not against the mentioning of the DDA. In fact as Peachy says, she it helps to reitterate to people that they are not only being ignorant but unlawful.
But I would like Mn to be the ones that have decided that they don't want such opinions expressed on here. That they are against such vile views, not that they are simply doing as they are told.

iyswim.

Mouseface · 10/06/2011 12:56

Good point MamazOn - it has to be MNHQ's decision because we need to know they get it.

AitchTwoOh · 10/06/2011 13:04

what difference does it make, why does everyone care so much that Justine et al agree on vileness? they have been clear that they disagree re the use of spastic on that thread (although i agree with Peachy re some alteration of the wording of the title), and they only deleted freakshow after they were mobbed into it, and quite wrongly imo.

if it's a legal thing, as this whole thread is about, then let it be a legal thing and let that be that.

Swipe left for the next trending thread