Can we please have a ruling on how unsupportive of other parents it is permissible to be

[twittymummyofnone]

within site rules, particularly, but not only, in reference to this thread;

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/2094153-To-think-that-a-lot-of-the-time-having-someone-in-the-family-with-a-disability-does-mean-being-long-term-poor

Have NCed obviously, but MNHQ can obviously see who I am and maybe we can get this cleared up one way or the other.

True calmet.

Sure is.

Sadly there are plenty of people who do believe exactly what HMo1 does. Mostly because they have no experience, direct or indirect, and merrily believe the Daily Wail's bollox. They have small minds, no empathy and a major inability to think outside of their own experience - and there are entirely too many people like that around, I'm afraid. :(

mn hq have a campaign.
this is my child
they need to read it and act on it.
simple really

If it had been roundly ignored, what would the thread have looked like?

It would look like every single other thread that posters like that pop up on.

Usually apart from correcting factual mistakes (repeated in every single thread in the same topic so ignored) nobody challenges it.

And no when factual mistakes are pointed out with evidence of the incorrect assertion there is never an apology never a "oh I didn't realise that" or any acknowledgement of error at all. It keeps getting repeated as fact by the same poster

So what you want is certain views banned by MNHQ if a MNer keeps repeating them?

In terms of unkindness, I see plenty of people on this site being unkind, both those who are intelligent, and those who are ill informed. If MN were going to ban for unkindness, there would be a mass banning

It's not about being unkind.

If in real life I walked up to a disabled person and told them they were a scrounger drain on the comunity and why should I as a tax payer fund their glass half empty approach and what the hell were they playing at thinking they needed disability aids.

If that person could prove I had said it I could be arrested for a hate crime

Well if we are being accurate, that's not what happy mummy said.
She posted about not ruling out any form of work. I can't see any reference to scroungers or not really needing aids.
I do think that there is quite a strong immediate response from a lot if the regular SEN posters and it might come from tiredness or fed up ness but it does read as quite strident.

Needsasock - I am not defending her views. But some of the comments upthread were about her being unkind. Many people on here are unkind.

yes Thumbwitch
There is one on my extended family, that it has taken me years to spot. But now that she is very old, she is not as discreet about it all as she once was. I dont think that she cares much anymore,who she offends.

Can a poster be banned for repeatedly being "plain mean"?

So what you want is certain views banned by MNHQ if a MNer keeps repeating them?

Nope not at all,that would be quite silly.we have a cross section of the comunity some members of it are belligerent unpleasant people.

It would however be ideal if comments that are intentionally goady went after all that is against the rules.

If you know you are posting incorrect things and saying they are facts (you know it because you have been shown repeatedly) using those facts to be anti a particular group of people it's goady

What about if you don't believe they are fact? I am thinking of those who post on FWR threads telling us that the facts about male violence are wrong, Should they be banned?

I understand your unhappiness. But if this proposed rule was applied fairly, alot of MNers would be banned.

Yes, it takes self control, and one poster early in saying 'that might be true of some families, but I think it might be better to discuss the typical not the outlier" (or some other phrase which flags 'don't feed this')

I posted similar 'don't feed and they go away' oodles of times during the FWR debates on disruption, and have seen it in action - it works. But it does indeed take other posters sharing that view - for once feeding starts, it does tend to become unstoppable.

She said something along the lines of

People in life having to budget for things they want.

In the context of a thread about the additional costs of a disability and said that moaning about bring broke is self pitying.

So moaning that you can't afford to buy carer support is self pitying and a luxury you can go without

Which is not the same as saying someone is a scrounger and doesn't need aids.

What about if you don't believe they are fact? I am thinking of those who post on FWR threads telling us that the facts about male violence

Are you talking opinion or stats or actual irrefutable facts?

When you are talking about say amounts of money or how a benefit works and all that is based on actual legislation so is a irrefutable fact say for example the LHA being a set amount.

I could have an opinion on that but it does not change it being a fact.

With stats you always get the ones saying I don't believe those have been collected correctly or without bias or even it's impossible to get totally accurate stats all that would be is opinion

Implying disability aids are a luxury is quite off really

"dont feed and they go away" has to be troll hunting surely?

as for the other phrase you use, I didnt really understand it.

and with respect, you are not about on every thread. Lots of posters dont have your way with words.

Well we could argue endlessly over what the poster meant but tbh my point was that the views expressed aren't that unusual, sadly and joining in with a group fck off and cnt etc doesn't do much for any argument.

Needsasock - I am talking about stats. Yes benefit figures are clear fact. But stats about the number of disabled people in poverty are treated by some in the same way as stats about male violence. And I am not talking about dodgy stats, but stats collected by agencies such as NSPCC.

I don't think it's a case of being plain mean, it's the targetting of threads whereby people are actively looking for help, advice, support. Benefit threads and disability threads in the main. There really does appear to be a very deliberate troll like appearance on all these threads from one particular poster. It's not even to defend a position either, as in, for example, the abortion threads, it appears to be, each and every time to post something goady. It is never to add to the discussion, and persuasion etc. have never made any sort of impact as they perhaps would with another poster. I come on, I state my case, I remain entrenched in my position and am entitled to post. That's it. Why?

Can i just say here, that certain poster is not ignorant to the problems the people she is goading face. She pops up on these threads quite often to educate disabled/single mums/hb claimants, that they are just not trying hard enough. That is the problem, not that someone has these views, but that they continue to air them on threads where people who are struggling talk about that.

That is what mn need to address, that it is what we are upset about. It is not some person saying disabled people need to think positive, it is that poster saying so. Over and over again.

That is why she is told to fuck off and called a goady cunt.

^^ What Beyond said.

I think it gets to the point when certain posters appear on threads about certain topics you know exactly what they are going to say, and it won't be good. That's when it all gets .