Sky News just featured story appearing in tomorrow's Sunday Mail

[TheCatsServant]

Apparently a woman spent 8 hours in a cell/being interviewed by the police for a "transphobic" Tweet along the lines of TWAW. Can't bring myself to buy the Mail tomorrow to check the details, but it may be taken up by other papers.

"the video didn't seem to have been taken with the subject's consent and, as far as we are aware, wasn't uploaded anywhere with that person's consent either. "

?

There is no requirement at all for consent to video or photograph people in public. Videoing a random person for no reason may come across as creepy, but where people (who are not mentally ill or disabled) are making a scene in public then it's quite normal & socially acceptable to video them.

Did MNHQ take down the videos of Ma'am's Game Stop rampage too when those were posted...anyone remember?

Thanks for the clarification MNHQ, and for reinstating the thread.

Given Stephanie Hayden's incredibly litigious nature, I can understand why MNHQ would err on the side of caution. It is a shame that one person can wield so much power but on balance, I'd rather keep MN as a place to discuss these issues than not have it at all.

Did MNHQ take down the videos of Ma'am's Game Stop rampage too when those were posted...anyone remember?

Some threads were taken down initially and then remained.

Its vitally important to be able to identify and name male-pattern abusive and controlling behaviour especially for the protection of women and children.

Its vitally important to be able to identify and name male-pattern abusive and controlling behaviour especially for the protection of women and children.

As far as I recall, the game stomp individual viewed that video as a highly desirable bit of self promotion. Claiming they would do exactly the same again, and...I believe...I want to say made a song about it?

So they were clearly under the impression that their threatening and intimidation was just a lot of larks.

But yes hiding threatening behaviour obviously stymies any attempts to identify a pattern.

Thanks for the clarification R0 and I agree re: male violence and abuse.

Interestingly, a girlfriend of mine who is looking at this thread said she wouldn't even have bothered looking at that video had it not been for all the comments deleted afterwards

Yep

Just did it myself

And I rarely follow links on mumsnet

But i knew this one had to be a 'good' one

a girlfriend of mine who is looking at this thread said she wouldn't even have bothered looking at that video had it not been for all the comments deleted afterwards

Yes, it's funny when things like this happen isn't it.

We know that any reference to previous names/history brings down the Wrath of Steph wherever it occurs, so I'm not surprised links are being deleted

Ha ha ha! I was deleted (see upthread) for saying that I often imagined what people in the public eye would look like with different hairstyles.

I mentioned no names, living or dead ...

That does seem a bit overzealous!

So, Stephanie is threatening Mumsnet, I presume? Is she threatening Kiwifarms too? If not, why not? Kiwifarms are far worse, after all.

If there are legal shenanigans going on in the background - with any person, regardless of this thread - then MNHQ should say so or say that discussion of that person cannot be undertaken for legal reasons.

Otherwise, the result is gaslighting women with deletions that don't break the rules without an explanation. As I do keep saying, the excellent Walking on Eggshells video the site is currently promoting in the sidebar to FWR has some very important advice about the harms this does.

I was deleted (see upthread) for saying that I often imagined what people in the public eye would look like with different hairstyles.

I was deleted for commenting on the expression. To be exact, I didn't actually say anything about the expression itself, let alone the person.

MNHQ should say so or say that discussion of that person cannot be undertaken for legal reasons

I agree.

then MNHQ should say so or say that discussion of that person cannot be undertaken for legal reasons.

Maybe the self identified lawyer has taken out an injunction against MNHQ too...

Maybe there's an injunction and no names can be mentioned.

oops - cross post

"I'm not denying sexism (obviously) but I honestly think if I'd been trans my life would have been about a zillion times harder."

Justine Roberts last year on here.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/3297067-Mumsnet-moderation-response-to-yesterdays-feedback?pg=2

Wonder if Justine's thoughts have shifted any since then?

I was looking for this thread yesterday, this explains why I couldn't find it.

I'm glad it's still here, it's a very interesting thread. Shame about the deletions, but I'm sure I can find the content of them elsewhere.

Oh yes, antipodean agriculture has an interesting history.

As far as I know, Hayden has said publicly that they are suing mumsnet?

Someone certainly is trying

twitter.com/RadFemLawyer/status/1060808248016756736

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3418617-mumsnet-is-breaching-section-26-of-the-equality-act-2010-harassment-by-hosting-feminist-forums-that-discuss-gender-critical-issues-legal-case

twitter.com/DrAdrianHarrop/status/1060145011818401793

It seems the Times has an article titled "Police waste too much time over silly spats" and someone has taken this personally today. Unless I missed something more triggering.