Deletions on the Stella Creasy Webchat thread

[ReluctantCamper]

Hello @MNHQ

please can you give some explanation of the rationale behind the deletion of two of my comments on this thread

both said (roughly )

I have contacted my MP to ask him to vote for the amendment

women can't identify out of misogyngy

the deletion message says 'Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.'

please can you explain how these comments broke talk guidelines?

many thanks in advance

Sure ReluctantCamper

There were several MNHQ requests for posters not to continue to make GRA-related points, so that the thread didn't become completely single-issue. We think it's reasonable in some circumstances to do this, in order to ensure that one aspect of a topic doesn't squeeze out all others. In this case, we thought it was really important that as many Mumsnetters as possible found out about the opportunity to impact legislation on street harassment, and we felt this wouldn't be possible if the thread was dominated by GRA-related questions.

For obvious reasons we need posters to follow our instructions, so we deleted posts which ignored them. We also had to delete some posts which argued about the deletions, for the same reasons - they were dominating the thread, and posters weren't following MNHQ requests.

Thanks,
MNHQ

Can you explain why you have banned busyboysmum please. She said nothing abusive and has been a member for years.

Hi TerfedOff

We don't discuss individual users, but some people have been temporarily suspended for the same issue - ignoring MNHQ requests. We'll be getting in touch with them soon.

There were many, many women (me included) who were deleted and were not posting the same questions about GRA.

By the time most of the deletions were made Stella Creasy had long gone so the argument that it was derailing loses credibility.

As an aside, as a lawyer who over the years has spent a great real if time consulting in draft legislation it is an absolute fair point to question the definitions of the elements of the legislation. If you cannot do so then the laws become unusable and ultimately challengeable.

For example the law on drink driving is defined as:

"Driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle on a road or other public place after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in a person’s breath exceeds the prescribed limit"

Now imagine if there was a totally ambiguous definition of motor vehicle, it has until 2018 only included vehicles that are motorised but a swathe of society has started to include vehicles with pedals within the definition. If there was going to be a potential change in law then it is prettt critical that you are clear on whether the law is going to include pedal powered vehicles. Otherwise it becomes meaningless nonsense.

When are MNHQ going to get someone on to defend the rolling back of safeguarding for women & children? Because we'll keep asking until they answer. Girl guides? NSPCC? Stonewall? All Sorts? LGBT Youth Scotland? Any/all MPs who should know better? If any one who is pushing this s agenda can come here & show is the impact assessments done to demonstrate how the agenda has come to be framed that women & children's boundaries can be ignored & in having any concerns or misgivings about switching single sex spaces to mixed sex, they can be labelled bigots, I'm all ears. LGBT Youth Scotland claim they considered the impact of their schools guide on all children but have not provided anything that demonstrates how they did this.

We'll keep asking, every time, because our questions need answers.

Hello BirdieInTheHand

By the time most of the deletions were made Stella Creasy had long gone so the argument that it was derailing loses credibility.

We disagree on that one - this was a guest post, not a webchat, and our aim was to allow as broad a constituency of MNers as possible to be made aware of and engage with the opportunity to ask their MP to support the amendment. That applies to the thread as a whole, not just for the period that Stella was on the thread from 5.30-6-sih (of her own accord - there's no obligation to do so on a guest post). Either way, tbh we do need to be sure that MNHQ instructions are followed - hope you agree that's reasonable. There was always the option to start another thread to discuss the moderation policy on this guest post.

Re your point about defining terms - Stella said early on:
"thanks for asking as its an important point in this proposal. The amendments use the definition in the equalities act 2010. It states:

For the purposes of subsection (4B), “sex characteristic” means the protected characteristic of sex in section 11 of the Equality Act 2010.”

This uses the same definition that covers protection in the workplace from discrimination for women, and is distinct from other categories of protected characteristics e.g. sexuality, religious or racial heritage."

We'll keep asking, every time, because our questions need answers

We understand that you'll keep raising this issue, SturdyEarmuffs, but repeating it over and over on the same thread is barracking. It's not productive, it creates a hostile environment for guests and partners and it prevents other people engaging and being heard. We think it's fair enough for us, after several very similar posts, to say that this point's been made often and well, so please don't repeat it to avoid completely dominating the thread and drowning out and/or putting off others who aren't as invested in it.

Either way, if mods make a request on the thread, we really do need people to follow it - they can always start a thread like this to ask questions or critique the policy.

My only early post on the thread was about the problem I have with raising this (or anything) with my weed-blinkered mp, so I'm not arguing in defence of myself barracking here. Just in case it sounds like I am

But from what I saw on the thread, a separate thread was set up like you suggest, and it was deleted as being a taat. Now I know it was reinstated, but can I ask if there is any umm "retraining" that will happen so all mods know in future that in such instances a taat has been recommended?

it was deleted as being a taat

This is a very fair point Beyond and a bit of a mess up - apologies from me, I didn't alert the rest of the team that I'd advised another thread. And yes, we're definitely having a chat here about processes if it arises again.

If someone is coming on to mn, either to do a web chat (NSPCC) or a guest post (SC) in a capacity as an elected official or national charity with influence over policy-making, then it is not unreasonable that they are pressed to answer specific questions.

If they fail to do so, then it is neither surprising nor unreasonable that mnetters will pick up on that and repeat questions. It is a known means of trying to hold people with power and responsibility to account, and in my opinion, should not be dismissed as "barracking."

Are you going to put that thread back up as you said you would? @katemumsnet

So basically GRA is starting to be a banned topic ? It’s already hidden away on the fem boards.

Yes the street harassment legislation is an important topic but GRA is too.

You basically came on thread and said ‘don’t talk about GRA’

Are we only allowed to talk about it where other folk can’t see or be highlighted to it?

I completely agree everywhere, MNetters have been raising this issue for a significant period of time and been ignored over & over, by numerous 'guests' - if anyone coming here to promote & seek posters support/involvement, they will be pulled up when serious, important & legitimate questions are ignored or obfuscated in responses.

Maybe MNHQ should explain this to those coming here for engagement when their views/organisations are antithetical to the safeguarding of women & children. Just a thought.

@Ooforfoxsakeridesagain I'd like to know that too.

It feels increasingly as though mnetters can ask the Right Questions or no questions at all.

ooforfoxsakeridesagain we're still discussing things here but I think probably not - there was a short window for users to contact their MP and that's now passed.

Are banned users going to be contacted and reinstated?

Yes, a teeny-tiny window.

Very good points made on the other thread discussing this and how SC failed to consult women (but did consult) Stonewall, so hurtled over here at the eleventh hour to tick that box.

I just can’t take her seriously.

Appears to be the way MNHQ roll Camper.

But Kate - the questions were germane to Stella's amendment. It used the words "having or presumed to have" the "protected characteristic of sex".

This means that Stella's amendment did not apply only to women, or even only to women and GRC-holding trans people.

I would not support legislation that did not define misogyny as applying only to women.

Those questions were important for feminists to ascertain whether or not they would be prepared to do what Stella asked and lobby their MPs to support the amendment.

(And Stella gave a very misleading answer, hence the continued questioning.)

I think I disagree with the deletions too. Fair enough to delete multiple identical posts from the same person - that would be barracking. But when individual women ask a question that it is important to them it is disrespectful to that woman to simply say their opinion doesn't matter, and to delete that statement. As with the NSPCC thread, there was opportunity for anyone to speak - it's concerning and disappointing that questioning about such a major issue is being deemed by MNHQ to be disruptive.

I thought MNHQs USP was that it was full of fiercely independent and intelligent women, and that people shouldn't be expecting to not be asked awkward questions if they want to come on to promote themselves / their cause.

The redefining of the terms "women" and "female" is one of the biggest, if not the biggest issue facing women today and yet more than one question is seen as "barracking"? Why shouldn't visitors to the site face multiple questions so they can see how important this is to do many women?

Are we to understand that in the spirit of freeze peach women on Feminism and Women's Rights are no longer permitted to discuss proposed legislation that affects women's rights?

There appears to be an authoritarianism problem in management that I sincerely hope will be looked into promptly because chatting among yourselves about what you will or will not allow women to discuss on the site had a rather deleterious effect the last time you did it.

So has reluctantcamper been banned then

I mean she did ask and hasnt been answered on the thread

I see you've deleted it...and not as a previously banned poster

Its very totalitarian the way MNHQ do this