Your moderation of the thread discussing Lavery’s abuse images.

[RickiTarr]

I’m aghast.

Just going into the dentists now but I will be back to explain more fully.

The thread;

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4274031-bizarre-definition-of-woman?watched=1&msgid=108344569#108344569

I understand the line you’re trying to walk OP, for how long and why, but you’ve just made a mistake on that thread. The discussion started about a definition on Twitter and then quickly moved on to the other content associated with that person, some of which are images of women being physically abused.

Please do explore the links shared on the thread and reconsider your deletions. The two I saw - mine and one a couple of posts above were completely fair comment about physical abuse of women, publicised on social media.

If there is any single word or phrase that you want to be extra cautious about, maybe you could edit and resinstate?

Otherwise this now a (predominantly) women’s site suppressing criticism of violence against women, which I’m sure wasn’t your intent.

Anyway, I’ll be back later to address details, as I said.

Denial of abusive male violence against a vulnerable woman, terrible to see.

@RickiTarr we're looking at this now.

@RickiTarr we've sent you a mail about your post.

Placemarking for the response to MNHQ'S email

I am concerned too MNHQ. It may well be very useful for women to see this discussion and go to see the pictures for themselves. They may be in similar abusive situations.

Thanks very much for the swift response @YetAnotherBeckyMumsnet

I am perfectly content for my post to be reinstated with the contentious sentence removed. It was peripheral anyway and doesn’t effect my message. Cheers.

Affect^

Great - will do that now @RickiTarr. Thanks.

Is there scope for more edits in future generally? Rather than losing whole posts? It might foster better feeling all round.

Apart from anything else heavy deletion makes threads hard to follow.