MNHQ Racism policy

[ThePigOfHappiness]

Hi,
I was just wondering if you could let us know when the racism policy has been amended? I'm sure following today's discussions on NI that it needs to be looked at.
It's clearly breaking the equality act to discriminate based on nationality as it is racist, yet MNHQ don't acknowledge this?
Ta

and of course, HQ aren't in anyway bound by the Act alone. IF they consider someone's dignity is being compromised by virtue of their demographic or personal characteristic outside of the Act (council house ownership, wealth/benefits status etc) then they can press the Big Red Button in any case.

I read the other thread and reported posts. I have to admit I suggested in reports that having an in-depth think/discussion about threads on NI stuff in particular might be a good idea - and I still think that is right.

NI, as most of us know, has particular, and often subtle, nuances of what might constitute offence or inflammatory remarks. Scotland and Ireland work into the mix there too as well as having their own distinct points of conflict.

These are not always obvious to anyone without direct experience so for MNHQ to do a bit of research seems fair to me.

When I saw the hoo-ha this morning I felt a little sorry that I hadn't posted on thread as with everything else going on I think MNHQ having to deal with an issue that they were unsure of must have been, well possibly bewildering.

I think Pan I agreed/agree with your take on things. I know MNHQ response may not be quick enough for everyone and to many of us it seems simple & straight forward - possibly not so to others. All in all I would rather MNHQ took time to put in place something more long-term, in plenty of time for the inevitable flash points later in the year rather than jump in and be accused later of not getting the full picture, misinterpreting, going too far, or not far enough. of course all those things may happen anyway but potentially less so if they do a bit of info gathering first

I am sure they are reading this thread and taking into account everyone's considered opinions and thoughts and hopefully will work with their whole team to aim for consistency and fairness on future threads in similar vein.

SacreBleu I'm not really sure what you mean? Do you mean if a poster started a thread re NI that it should be monitored/ looked at more closely by MNHQ. Or that threads should be oked by MNHQ before they're started? It might just be me but I'm not really clear on what you're suggesting.

Sorry SacreBlue, not SacreBleu

Yesterday a post was deleted for being disablist for talking about glasses.

It was? I was on that one and I wear glasses. I was offended about this much (holds thumb and finger about 1cm apart) If I'd gone to pieces every time someone mentioned glasses I wouldn't have survived primary school, let alone the decades since.

The only way not to offend is to shut down all discussion. Maybe closing MN is the logical next move?

No wigglesrock, my post was about MNHQ familiarising themselves with issues being raised on this thread (and following the previous thread) and developing a policy to deal with issues if reports are made on a thread in future - just like with any other thread.

They most probably have done this with other contentious issues so NI threads are no different.

I see now, too much kids tv has addled by tired head

I think my main issue was actually with MNHQ itself & it's ah shucks attitude. If posters are racist, sectarian, disabilist, homophobic, ageist then they are to the most part pulled up on it. Deletions can be slow, although I personally don't think posts should be deleted, I think they should be left up with a deletion type message but the actual post should be left - better the wanker you know.

If HQ panic because a thread involves NI then they need to be more on the ball, & less dismissive and patronising fuck knows we've had enough of that.

HQ exacerbated the issue with the original flippant response & the deafening silence since isn't helping either.

HQ exacerbated the issue with the original flippant response & the deafening silence since isn't helping either.

Well yes. The holidays ended yesterday. And still no response. I was patient, but now I am just wondering if the other posters who wanted immediate answers were right after all.

My issue isn't so much the racist aspect, but the referral to the thread as a bunfight and the fact that it keeps happening when NI comes up. I keep saying it because I hope they are reading.

My thread about midnight shopping was full of PAs and the things that were said were awful. It didn't bother me because I don't have the energy to waste on that. There were some deletions, but no message on the thread etc.

Yet a thread is started by an OP attacking a group of people and when they defend themselves, quite calmly I might add, it was other posters creating the nastiness, it was declared a bunfight, the thread was locked and finally deleted.

I. Don't. Get. Why. Its. Different.

Hello

We're sorry if it seems like a deafening silence. We know the holidays are officially over, but several senior MNHQers aren't back at their desks until next week. We know you're very keen to get a proper ruling from us, but this is something we need to look at properly and with all the relevant staff involved. We will be doing that as soon as we practically can.

Wannabe - the thread was deleted in the end for being deliberately inflammatory, after we took some second opinions within MNHQ. So our initial call was wrong but in the end, we hope, we deleted it for the right reason.

Yes, I know that, you eventually deleted it for the correct reasons when it was pointed out to you.

But my point is that this happens on all threads that discuss NI, and that needs to change.

Otherwise, what are you actually waiting to discuss with seniors?

It was the having to "argue the point" with mnhq that bothered me the most. Couldn't our views have been accepted rather than argued with, in the first instance? I don't think this was the right approach. It seemed to be assumed that we were in the wrong.

Well apparently second opinions had to be taken to decide if something was inflammatory or not Maybe we are supposed to suck it up, certainly looks that way.

This may be unpopular to say, but looking at TG I could see why a 2nd opinion was looked for. The TG specifies "deliberately inflammatory behaviour." Whoever looked at the OP could reasonably ask 'does this qualify?' The fact it angered many posters isn't the litmus test.
The OP could be interpreted as ill-informed, fairly ignorant and possibly represent a base-reactive view of many people. But 'deliberately inflammatory' isn't the conclusive thing at all. The fact though that the OP didn't come back to explain themselves is a bit of an indictment though, and the eventual decision was correct, imo.
Another way of looking at it could have been to let it ride so that other posters will witness the argument being laid out, though that's risky and problematic too.
I look to the deletions being made on this thread, the apology expressed, and the open-hearted undertaking that HQ wish to get this right and are apparently absorbing the criticisms on here as Good Things.

The fact it angered many posters isn't the litmus test.

Ofcourse not, but there are threads left to stand all the time on here that are far more heated than that one, and the thing that first made it be considered for deletion was that it was a bunfight. Was it though? Really?

People post nasty shit on benefit threads all the time, and they are counteracted and the thread runs and runs.

So why was that one different? It had nothing to do with the op, HQ had to be convinced that the op wasn't just a bit daft. They wrote "deliberately inflammatory" because all the posters on the thread were telling them it was. Let's not forget, it took pages of tooing and froing before that conclusion was reached by the second mod!!

awful weightist thread
Def a consideration for TG review re 'dignity'.

Just wizzing through TG 'dignity' doesn't appear and yet it would be quite a tactical and versatile tool. It's used in employment practice to reinforce the expectations of the Act, and so it's quiet feasible for HQ to include it in TG and use it to good effect imho.

Afternoon everyone,

Huge apologies for the silence. Now that most people are back in the office, we're looking into this thread and the issues it's raised, and will get back to you soon

Bump, anyone?

Is there any suggestion from HQ when "soon" will be? It seems to be taking a disproportionately long time to formulate a substantive response. .

This dropped off my tio and I have only just remembered. I came on here expecting there to be a response.

Its pretty ridiculous now.

I agree. Thats a week now and still we are getting 'HQ need to talk about it"

Off topic wannna you can set your TIO so that the most recently responded to thread is at the top of your list so upu will see this thread when (if?) there is a response from hq.

My TIO goes in order of most recent new response, but threads drop off three days after my last post on the thread. I think.

I hope this won't fall off my TIO before the response comes.

Oh right- i think you can change the number of days it stays for. Mine is default i think and that is longer than 3 days.

Had a look there and there's the option to keep them on for upto 30 days. I put it up to 5.

:)

I knee i hadnt imagined that function