MNHQ We Have a Problem

[DioneTheDiabolist]

In the past week, we have had the NSPCC pull out of a Web chat about their Speak Out Stay Safe (teaching children how to stay safe from abuse and what to do if they have any concerns) and PANTS (teaching parents how to talk to young children about staying safe from sexual abuse in an age appropriate way) programmes.

We have also had Stella Creasey MP pull out of a Web chat about making misogyny a hate crime.

As I am interested and invested in the safety and wellbeing of women and children, I am disappointed that these Web chats did not take place, seemingly because the views of the NSPCC and Stella Creasey regarding Trans issues do not align with some GC MNetters.

I want to ask MNHQ, what are you doing/can be done to prevent this from happening again? Plenty of women and parents here would like to hear what they have to say about keeping our children safe and legislation being drafted to protect women.

It wouldn't be provocative and rude if those posts genuinely were irrelevant, and there were a bunch of other questions to be answered.

That NSPCC thread was put up in the evening of 22 Aug. The first response was in the afternoon of 28 Aug.
No burning questions from anyone during that time.

That's why they won't interact. That's why no one wants to interact. And until the gc crowd learn to listen to other opinions. Not to attack or hound people for having different opinions, no one is ever going to come on here and interact.

So give us some opinions - well, apart from the one that we should just shut up and stop asking awkard questions...

This is true Bowl, you have never called me a paedophile, a sociopath, a misogynist, a sealion, a seagull, a troll, a rape-apologist, a gas-lighting abuser, a halfwit, OR posted sealion memes at me!

Enjoy your very small person

if you think one of my posts is abusive or breaks talk guidelines, then report it. Don't just throw out wild accusations.

Oh the irony. How many times have you accused people on this thread of abuse so far?

Rat I do wholly sympathise that your world would be a much nicer, happier place if people would just not talk about or worry about the nasty stuff. Sadly that's totally incompatible with safeguarding.

Anyone who's taken any interest in the progress of the GRA debate so far should know that GC women have learned by bitter experience that being nice, polite, delicate in approach, careful not to offend or overstate their position, supportive of and encouraging of the other party to set all the terms and generally being good well socialised girls is exactly what got women's and children's rights under the threat they currently stand under. This is really not the time for worrying about being too loud, or not 'nice' enough.

250 posts.

Not one from MNHQ.

I guess there literally IS no problem?

It brings the clickbait in. This keeps the advertisers happy.

That is the bottom line.

It must be extremely embarrassing for HQ who are between a rock and a hard place. The country's best known safeguarding/child protection charity can't answer basic questions on their own policies and the conflict between them.

250 posts. Not one from MNHQ.

What could they possibly say that they have not said before?

Happy Friday @MNHQ.

There have been some suggestions as to how to prevent guests from pulling out of speaking to MN users. The latest being that they don't do Chats or answer questions at all and stick to doing Guest Posts instead.

MNHQ, have you spoken to the guests?

Submit questions by PM?

That could be a possibility RatRolyPoly.

They are actively denying these safeguarding holes exist. If you don't think they should be held to account for this, the problem isn't women who think they should: the problem is you.

This.

Submit questions by PM?

I love how this emulates the very thing that we have issues with.

Keeping stuff a secret, is the very opposite of safeguarding.

Well done.

Keeping stuff a secret, is the very opposite of safeguarding.

So grown adults on an open parenting forum aren't allowed to exchange private messages because it's against safeguarding?

Or is it only a safeguarding risk when they're posing questions to guests or organisations?

What about if they tell their friends what question they've submitted? Then will they be safe?? And what exactly is the threat to them if they don't ....tigers???

This really has taken a very bizarre turn.

So grown adults on an open parenting forum aren't allowed to exchange private messages because it's against safeguarding?

I don't understand why asking questions about kids safety should be a secret.

Can you explain what that will achieve, apart from not upsetting those that were not even asking their own questions in the first place?

Can you explain what that will achieve, apart from not upsetting those that were not even asking their own questions in the first place?

It was only a suggestion. I thought it might mean guests weren't swamped live on threads with questions and other posters may not feel crowded out by any particularly vociferous group. I wasn't being specific to the NSPCC, just in general. So the questions come in via PM, the guest reads them, then quotes and responds to the ones they want to on a live thread.

Honestly, I'm not wedded to the idea, I'm just throwing it out there.

The danger with not making the questions public is that the responder can just ignore difficult questions and avoid legitimate challenge.

It’s not just an issue for occasions where trans issues might come to the fore. Do we really want a government spokesman to come for a webchat about Brexit and be able to ignore difficult questions.

What about during election campaigns?

The NSPCC thread was empty for a whole week. FWR gave every other Mumsnetter a week's head start. Nobody had a point to raise or a question to ask. It was tumbleweed.

Nobody gave a shit until the uppity ones said something.

The danger with not making the questions public is that the responder can just ignore difficult questions and avoid legitimate challenge.

Yes exactly.

But they can already ignore difficult questions; nobody has a gun to their head!

Yes they can ignore. But it’d be fairly telling if they had say a hundred questions on issue x and only 5 on issue y and they refused to talk about issue x.

What should have happened is they had a cut off and time to formulate responses. So say thread opened on the first, closed a week later then a few days to take the questions back and formulate responses to the main question types.

This would have allowed them to investigate if they weren’t aware and to talk internally about how to respond.

The danger with not making the questions public is that the responder can just ignore difficult questions and avoid legitimate challenge.
AFAIK no one who agrees to do a chat is obligated to answer all the questions asked of them. Any guest (or poster) can ignore questions regardless of whether they are written on a thread or in a PM.

When guests don't turn up, they don't answer any questions at all.

AFAIK no one who agrees to do a chat is obligated to answer all the questions asked of them. Any guest (or poster) can ignore questions regardless of whether they are written on a thread or in a PM

You are talking public representatives here. People who are voted in or paid from the public purse. Private individuals - yes. But NSPCC and Stella Creasy MP?

They should have to answer questions - it is literally their job.

Yes Dione but in an open chat it's more obvious that a "guest" is evading pertinent questions.

What should have happened is they had a cut off and time to formulate responses. So say thread opened on the first, closed a week later then a few days to take the questions back and formulate responses to the main question types.

YY.