Agenda, much?

[Malificence]

I don't usually wander onto the MN facebook page but I was pretty horrified to find what looks very much like an MRA agenda posted on there.
I'm trying very hard to see what relevance the photo used for their site has regarding the voices of unheard children. Looks more like how they would like to see their women to me.

www.facebook.com/#!/mumsnet?sk=wall

I would seriously like to know about the manhating/womanhating thing.
Would it be defamatory to say F4J are womanhaters and if so does that mean people can still go around saying MN Fems are manhaters - something which has been often reported and not deleted in the past?

Because I would be willing to bow to necessity to avoid another Gina Ford incident but we really can't carry on here if there's a double standard that works against us.

@runningforthebusinheels

That's as clear as mud Helen

Thanks for the clarification though - you're not bothered about them slagging off MN to this extent then?

Not sure that "not bothered" captures it. We probably prefer to "rise above".

On international woman's day, a men's rights organisation - Fathers for Justice - silenced women on Mumsnet.

Mumsnet accepted this, despite their stated commitment to free speech.

@smallwhitecat

"unless we are specifically compelled to do so by law." which given the grasp of legal issues there is in these parts, presumably equates to "whenever someone threatens us with legal action, however ill-founded"

I don;t want to alarm you all, but I wouldn't believe a word that comes out of this particular orifice, not now anyway

Well, think what you like of my orifice, smallwhitecat, it's the truth. While I have worked here, we have had numerous requests for poster's details, often accompanied by the thread of legal action. I can only think of one instance where we eventually complied - because the police requested us to.

And I'm not giving F4J stupid FB page anymore hits either.

Why don't you rise above their baseless legal threats then?

@Nyac

On international woman's day, a men's rights organisation - Fathers for Justice - silenced women on Mumsnet.

Mumsnet accepted this, despite their stated commitment to free speech.

How have you been silenced, Nyac? We've just asked everyone to stick to our Guidelines - and said that we will delete posts that break them.

Mumsnet wouldn't hand over our details, they stood firm against Garry the adman.

MNHQ There is a huge difference between being 'legally compelled to' give details, and being 'requested' to do so.

Which is it?

Am I safe on here?

So F4j are backtracking on the legal thing.
But they've got what they wanted, publicity.

I've never believed that all publicity is good publicity. They've shown themselves to be self serving, hateful and quite stupid. It would've made more sense to hide those particular lights under bushels.

I am still very disturbed by their continued trolling of the Gingerbread Fb page - their agenda is fathers rights - not children's rights.

We're unable to discuss what kind of organisation F4J is. They are misogynistic bullies.

It is clear from their behaviour : handcuffing Margaret Hodge, sitting on Harriet Harman's roof, painting ex-wives as vindictive and malicious, all their criminal behaviour. Plus the woman-hatred we see plastered all over their website.

Will you delete that post. Is it defamatory? It's a criticism of an organisation and its objectives. They are dangerous to the well-being of many women and children.

So, to any admin of Mumsnet, have you been told you're a shit parent because you're protecting your son from his abusive father yet? Can you fucking blame me for being angry. Reinstate the posts. Let people see the full fucking story. Please.

@Nyac

Mumsnet wouldn't hand over our details, they stood firm against Garry the adman.

Indeed we did.

I am very sorry for Gingerbread. I hope they complain to the ASA.

The ASA will act on just one complaint, by the way - they don't like to be swayed by orchestrated campaigns.

@LineRunner

MNHQ There is a huge difference between being 'legally compelled to' give details, and being 'requested' to do so.

Which is it?

Am I safe on here?

Think it's safe to say we were legally compelled, LineRunner. Apols for worrying you.

Well if I have whiff of a threat from anyone associated with F4J against me and my children then I will call the Police.

It is really significant that they chose 2 female politicians isn't it?|

Because if they'd chained themselves to John Prescott, he would've lamped them.

And they know that. They understand that it's easier to intimidate women than men. So that's what they do.

They really are fine specimen of men aren't they?