MNHQ need to review policy regarding apologist posts

[Baconyum]

This has happened several times this year that I'm aware of.

MNHQ allowing posts defending rapists and csabusers to stand but deleting posts attacking these posts.

Biased in completely the wrong way. Shocking for a site supposedly supporting parents inc parents of victims and parents who've been victims.

I for one would like to know why MNHQ takes this stance.

One thread in question

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/2618250-AIBU-to-not-want-to-socialise-with-someone-convicted-of-sexual-offences-related-to-children?msgid=60578335#60578335

But there are/have been others.

'being worried about the poor convicted paedophiles being thrown into the wilderness.'

I AM worried about this ^ and do think it's worth discussing in a measured way. I am in the minority being concerned about this, and I'm not going to rehearse those points of view here (as that's not what this thread is about).

But, if everyone who had called me a paedophile apologist yesterday had their way, then that subject would never get discussed. Useful debate effectively silenced.

AF and Maryz seem to get where I'm coming from. Debate yes consciously offensive to the point of goady no.

That was a horrific thread. Sometimes I think people go against the OP purely to be obtuse.

Oh good, you have two suppprters.

I don't get your thread at all OP, and I'm pleased mnhq don't support your argument.

I am not "supporting" any one person. I am giving my opinion.

Just disagree if you wish. No need for the snidery.

Op you posts are full of 'I' 'I think' 'I said'

Yeah, it's not all about YOU and what YOU want to be left in threads.

Because I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to attribute my thoughts and opinions to others.

Completely agree with Grey and U2.

The title in itself suggested triggers ... If you open such a thread you have to take some responsibility for the fact that there is likely to be contentious opinions on there.

This is NOT a safe place.

If your getting distressed or stressed by the site - turn off.

It's all about choices.

The trouble with this thread is that few people know what was actually posted, and it's interesting that, of those who do, the majority support the view that MN's line was inconsistent; and the one who doesn't support that view is someone who had a number of posts deleted for some pretty offensive statements.

As MN ultimately recognised, there's a line to be drawn between allowing free speech and allowing people to post highly objectionable comments suggesting that objecting to people who download child abuse material is simply hysterical frothing. The point is that they were extremely quick to delete the personal attacks, not so quick to delete the paedophile excusers, as they themselves acknowledged. However, I don't believe that this is in any shape or form MN policy, and on the whole I'm happy to accept the apologies that were made and draw a line under it.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/2620589-To-consider-ending-my-relationship-over-rape-jokes?pg=18&order=

Another thread full of apologise including jokes about rape... ONE deletion and a weak email that MNHQ 'will take a look'.

*apologism