MNHQ, a word in your shell-like please - about these pro-BNP threads... consider this a petition

[TheLadyOfTheGreenKirtle]

hasn't this gone far enough? these threads are being allowed to stand which considering the "policies" of the BNP and the views expressed by "activists" is appalling. yes, free speech is wonderful, but some of these threads can be seen as inciting racial hatred, there are many, many, disablist, homophobic, racist remarks made and implied and they always go the same way. the threads are started to cause a bunfight. the BNP will not get anymore supporters on here, so why be deliberately controversial?

mn is a self-moderated site. this is great and one of the reasons i use it. however, the mners are now moderating and saying that we have had enough. we have complained a LOT about this type of thing - please take note!

[memoo]

noddy explains it very well!!

[wannaBe]

but if people don't post then the posters won't get the attention. People are actually posting on the thread in question that the op is obviously just doing as she always does - posting for attention, yet the irony is that by posting on the thread they're giving her exactly what she wants.

[SeaShellsOnTheSeaShore]

I think the threads should remain, as a real reminder these attitudes exist and people voted for the BNP. I would be against censoring a political party from MN even though it's manifesto and politicians disgust me.

I am, however, surprised DP is not banned, as she seems to have gone from a amusingly forthright poster with right wing views, to what appears to be persistant trolling in the sense I understand of the term.

I guess MNHQ have got their head in the sand over it all until the electionhas passed. It's all going to settle down very soon.

[ChickensNeedOpposableThumb]

So, has DP found the perfect trolling material? Because she can use freedom of speech as an excuse to upset people? I doubt that there is another topic on MN where a poster would get away with such unpleasant statements. The trolling should be dealt with, IMO.

[smallorange]

The fact is that DP's viewpoint is legitimate, however upsetting it is. She isn't breaking the law. I wish she would give it a rest, but banning her is denying that people have these views, and that is dangerous in itself.
If DP is banned, where do we draw the line with other posters' opinions we don't like?

[gorionine]

I do not understand what banning BNP threads will achieve at all. BNP supporters will just feel that they are victimised and picked upon which will just reenforce their feeling of hatred towards anyone.

I have been really surprised at the ignorance of some BNP supporting posts but never insulted (I am a Muslim). I feel it is sad that some people have got these views but I desagree with banning them.

I think these post might start as "venom spitting" but they invite to discussion and maybe, with a bit of luck, they might give us a chance to redress the balance by showing people can be different and desagree without the need for one of side to totally shut up. We would only stop people expressing theses ideas, we would not stop them from thinking them, discussion on the other hand could achieve this aim.

[TheLadyOfTheGreenKirtle]

gigantaur and noddy put it v well. and while i agree that not posting would be the best course of action, why should bigotry go unchallenged? however, these threads just go the same way.

[smallorange]

I think ignoring is yhe way forward ( although I admit I am very bad at that)

[scurryfunge]

It is very dangerous to ban opinions because they differ from yours. They may be abhorrent but unfortunately they are not unlawful

[treedelivery]

I dunno - the BNP trolling has been like somesort of anti-BNP movement in it's self! It has made them seem really really really stupid, whereas I'd only have gone for really really stupid before.

I'd normally agree with you Gigantaur, where you say 'genuine political debate is fine, no matter what the subject.
deliberatly posting to cause offence should not be allowed'
But because the threads are such a bad advert for the BNP I'm incline to let her/them/it crack on, and look a moron.

I'd be more concerned if someone came along with reasoned and intelligent grounds for their policies. Especially as that would mean I was living in some alternate reality where such a thing was possible.

[TheLadyOfTheGreenKirtle]

can i just say that I have been very careful about not naming specific posters, even if i think they should be banned. in line with the "personal attacks" policy of mn i think we should refrain from naming names.

[SomeGuy]

I read through this thread www.mumsnet.com/Talk/politics/963126, and while it is supportive of the BNP, there aren't any discriminatory posts there, or even mentions of their policies, although are a lot of rather gratuitous insults of the OP.

If there are threads that are racist or whatever, they can be deleted.

However I don't see the point of deleting a thread that consists of one BNP supporter and 99 people telling her to fuck off. It's not as if the site is turning into stormfront....

[daftpunk]

Hi

I have started 2 BNP threads.

On the 2nd thread I quoted statistics on how the BNP performed, the thread has been adult and productive imo. No one got abusive or OTT, infact it was fairly light-hearted.

I did say on that thread that I would not be starting anymore BNP threads (2 out of the 100's of political threads is a drop in the ocean really).

The election is over.

However, I feel that political debate is important, and if you start censoring one type of thread, it will lead to others possibly...?

I agree with Wannabe. Ignore, or hide the thread.

As I said on the other thread, we've all had enough and I just want to get back to posting about normal stuff.

[smallorange]

If this isn't about one poster in particular then what you are proposing-censorship- is unworkable.

And I don't think she should be banned. Challenged, yes.

[MIFLAW]

The question is not really about BNP threads.

It is about being deliberately provocative and insulting within the context of threads which happen to be pro-BNP.

Please can she be banned or suspended for the latter? The former I can deal with.

[Aitch]

but she's a troll, absolutely 100% a troll. no-one's talking about banning political discussion. MN should, however, ban trolls.

[ChickensNeedOpposableThumb]

yy Aitch.

[Aitch]

"We thought it was about time we outlined and explained Mumsnet policy on the thorny issue of trolls. (For those who don't know, a troll is someone who poses as someone else in order to stir up trouble, fulfil their own perverted agenda, or just for the hell of it.)

Unfortunately, it's not always immediately obvious whether a poster is, in fact, a troll. We all tend to be a bit suspicious of new folks posting things of a sensitive or inflammatory nature, but we would rather Mumsnet erred on the side of giving folks the benefit of the doubt and risked being made to look a bit foolish than pounce on someone who turns out to be genuinely in need of help. We hope you agree.

Secondly, in our experience trolls thrive on attention ? the more aggressively you or we attack, the more likely they are to stick around and cause mayhem ? ignore their posts and usually they'll go away. Ban them and there's nothing to stop them returning with a new email address and identity (no website can stop that happening).

Having said that, whether posted by trolls or otherwise, we don't tolerate any unnecessarily abusive postings and would certainly ban anyone who was persistently doing this of kind of thing.

Please do [email protected] if you have any concerns at all and we promise take it very seriously and to closely monitor any troublemakers.

We are conscious that most Mumsnetters have enough stresses in their lives without finding more on here. But on the bright side, considering the number of users and discussions, disturbances are mercifully few and far between not least because you, the members, police the boards extremely effectively and with a good deal of common sense.

Many thanks and keep up the good work.

Best,
Mumsnet Towers"

[Aitch]

while i tend to agree with the 'ignore them and they'll go away' line, dp clearly offends new posters just as quickly as she does old ones, so i can't see ignoring her being a workable solution.

so i really think that this is the key point. "Having said that, whether posted by trolls or otherwise, we don't tolerate any unnecessarily abusive postings and would certainly ban anyone who was persistently doing this of kind of thing."

dp is canny enough to rarely openly abuse mners, hers is a more snidey, picky, then a 'wot guv, no not me, guv' style. but we can all see her for what she it. A troll.

[noddyholder]

aitch is right.Also not possible to report the sheer volume of insulting posts Mn HQ would be at it all day!

[Aitch]

yy i am curious about that too lenin. how personal do the personal attacks have to be?

[aquavit]

please don't ban all threads on a particular political topic/party. But please those of you who read offensive posts do report them.

I can see that this is not just about the grey but very important line between incitement and general twuntishness: it's also about the grey but very important line on internet boards between frank discussion and deliberate attempts to offend and distress (I think that trolling is only one subset of this, because it can also be done by regular and legitimate posters).

But I feel quite strongly that the solution to both is to pick up on individual instances rather than take blanket action about a subject (in this case the BNP) even though it does attract a great deal of bad posts.

I'm deeply sympathetic to the OP's position that it's not a nice thing to have on MN; but I guess I would hope that ignoring it (or challenging it: whichever is your bag) will be more effective than censoring it.