IndigoBell support thread

[betterwhenthesunshines]

I see from another member that Indigo Bell has been banned from MN. I would just like to say that it was her advice that led me to look into help for my DD. Without that I truly believe she would not have made the advances she has.

Indigo's views mat not have been proven scientifically, but she certainly helped open many people's eyes to alternative ways of helping their children. People could choose to listen or ignore as they wished. She always took time to help people who were stuck and frustrated. I miss her and MN is a poorer place without her.

AT the top of this page Our SN area is not a substitute for expert advice. While many Mumsnetters have a specialist knowledge of special needs, if they post here they are posting as members, not experts.
So I propose that MN reconsiders. Please.

Well, thanks MNHQ for coming and explaining. Hopefully indigo will see this and come back.

But I think the point is that she probably felt under attack for doing (in her view) nothing more than recommending strategies that have worked for her.

Over and over again on the sn board people come looking for advice, and are given strategies, suggestions and 'remedies' (loosely, eg GF diet, fish oils etc). Indigo was (on this board at least) just one of many posters recommending things that had been successful for her. Unless her tone/style of posting on other boards was very, very different, I can't really see why other posters would take offence tbh.

Ok.
Am going to say this once more.
You asked her to stop telling people of her experiences with her dd and ds.
She refused and told you to ban her.
So, rather than explaining to the reporters (DA tutors perchance??) that indigo Is giving an opinion based on her experience, you banned her.
That about sum it up?
In all honesty I don't think she would come back :(
As I said in the TH thread, i really that what some of use are doing will be mainstream treatment for kids with asd/dyslexia/OCD in 10 years.
MN could have been instrumental in helping, but instead choose to defer to posters who don't like what they read ON A PUBLiC FORUM.

Well said zzzz

MNHQ you didn't actually have to ban her though did you?

No they didn't actually have to ban to her. They backed her into a corner which gave her no other option.

@coff33pot

but Rowan of mnhq has asked her to stop saying she has cured her dd?

We did not ask her to stop saying that she had cured her dd. We had absolutely no problem with her saying that.

Our concern (based on a significant number of reports from other Mumsnetters) was that some other posters felt she was implying that if their child continued to have dyslexia, it was a result of a failing on their part - and they were finding that implication upsetting.

Our request to her (as you can see from the mail) was that she should reconsider the tone of some of her posts.

This is a request we make of Mumsnetters all the time, by the way; there was nothing unusual (for us) in us asking her to do this.

Her response was to ask us to ban her.

Exactly bialystockandbloom, deregistering is one thing (and could have been done giving indigo the choice to return) but banning is another thing alltogether, surely?

@Badvoc

You asked her to stop telling people of her experiences with her dd and ds.

No - sorry, but this is categorically untrue. At no point did we ask her to do this.

@bialystockandbloom

MNHQ you didn't actually have to ban her though did you?

When posters ask us to ban them (which does happen from time to time), we take it to mean they no longer want to be a part of Mumsnet - and we tend to do as they ask.

Hmm

I admire and like Indigo. But this is all a bit handbags at dawn.

I haven't seen the posts about which mn received complaints and I suspect a great deal lies in how they were phrased.

If people were genuinely believing that Indigo was implying that their child wouldn't have dyslexia if they just did the right treatment, the that would be upsetting - in a similar way to the posts suggesting that children with ADHD just need strong behaviour management and structure.

Being asked to restructure your posts is not unusual I think.
And if you are upset then deregistering or flouncing is the usual way to go - asking to be banned seems odd.

I am also puzzled why mnhq didn't just say 'no. Deregister or flounce. We are not banning you'

Hopefully Indigo will ponder the number of people who are desperate for her kind support and that will encourage her back.

@Catsdontcare

Exactly bialystockandbloom, deregistering is one thing (and could have been done giving indigo the choice to return) but banning is another thing alltogether, surely?

It's the other way around actually, Catsdontcare. Deregistering is irreversible. Bans can (sometimes) be reversed.

I don't agree with all Indigo's suggestions/beliefs but she has only the welfare of our children at heart when she posts. Unfortunately state provision for children with SN/developmental delays is limited, I am uncomfortable with the thought that the bigots and spiteful posters are 100% welcome on here, but she is not.

In no way am I trying to belittle those that were upset and felt compelled to report her but this happens in RL all the time.

Any anxious parent (most of us mums actually) have sometime or other doubted that we are doing enough for our children. A person could read nearly every bit of advice here and suddenly think they are not doing this or that or the other and are therefore failing their kids.

there is a lt that can make you want to bite your tongue take the AAibu threads! now there you do see a lot of direct or indirect attacks of failure.

Here is another goose going off for a gander for the week.

I am always interested in what indigo posts, whether I agree or not with her beliefs.

Hi ,
everyone has said what I was going to say, we are on Indigo side.. She has been very helpful to this board.

Ye. Me too Cornzy

this all sounds very odd.

MNHQ - did Indigo ask you to ban her in good faith, or are you being a teensy bit disingenuous over this? eg:

MNHQ: indigo, could you moderate your tone, please?

Indigo: sorry, I don't believe I've said anything wrong. if you think otherwise, can you ban me.

... and this gets interpreted as indigo asking to be banned (rather than taken as indigo defending her position)

rather hastily paraphrased, but you get the idea.

Indigo: you will be missed. Honk, honk.

Indigo posts in good faith, from a position of experience, and with the intention of helping other posters. She has strong views on how best to help non-neurotypical children. If the same standards of tactfulness and sensitivity are applied universally, fair enough. Since it seems to me that many, many posters are not subject to this requirement, I will also be abstaining from MN for the time being.

Many SN parents find that expressing our different-to-usual views on other boards frequently leads to conflict and/or unpopularity, which is why so few of us venture elsewhere.

For example, it remains acceptable to MNHQ for posters to say they think ADHD doesn't exist, that apparent autism is often just naughtiness and/or poor parenting, that disability benefits are a scroungers' bonus. There is even less evidence for these views than for biomedical interventions in dyslexia.

I have looked into many of the therapies that Indigo favours, and am not personally convinced by the fairly poor scientific evidence available so far. But given the minimal research done, it's quite likely that some of them will eventually be officially found to be useful for some children, to some extent.

Honking for Indigo. She really helped me and my family.

I have always found Indigo to be astonishingly helpful and patient, tbh.

but it can get very wearing when you are repeatedly told that what you have found to be helpful for your child (yes, yes, anecdotal , blah, blah, blah) is nonsense, and that events cannot have happened as you say theu did.

I have been told (out in the big bad world of MN, not here in SN) that the 'alternative' stuff I have done with dd1 cannot have made the differences it did - the diet stuff, and SI etc. that it is coincidence that dd1 started talking after going gf, or that her anxiety vanished overnight after her first session of SI OT. that I must be mistaken. and so on.

I expect that, if indigo was a little short on some posts, she was probably reacting off the back of posts like those, telling her that what she was saying was nonsense, when she has evidence in front of her eyes that it is not.

She did get a lot of abuse from other posters about TH even that TH was a cult and she was brain washing us ridiculous. There are so many lovely people on here but there are also a few nasty gits who secretly report others fir no good reason anyone remember petition gate on here??it's all a bit unpleasant

Bloody hell, my MS NHS paed was happy for us to try GF/CF and gave me Paul Shattock's details. She prescribed GF flour etc and arranged an appointment with an NHS dietician to ensure we did it properly. She knew it wasn't proven but was interested enough in the evidence to think it was worth a try. This was in 2004! So not just woo.

I just joined a few weeks ago but I read a few posts by Indigo Bell and found them incredibly useful. Shame shes banned now. Seems very strange to me. Makes me a bit fearful of what we are all allowed to write on here!!!

god, wish I had your gp, ellen.

we have had (rapid count) 4 gp since going gf/cf with dd1, and not one of them is even interested. dd2's paed (she was FTT as a baby) even wrote in her notes 'mother insists on keeping dd2 on a low-fat diet' . because obviously, a diet without cow's milk can only be low-fat. there are no other fats in existence at all, no sirree

I saw some of the indigo posts and while the posts were strident and challenging her desire to help and inspire people shone through.
Agree she was backed into a corner - maybe a few days to cool off would have been best. Please at least don't delete her threads - I don't post much but have bookedmarked a couple so that when I have more time I can try a few of her suggestions.

I stand corrected on the banning/deregistering although it doesn't make sense!