Hayden and their latest case

[Amalfimamma]

So this is the latest message to intimidate after their idea to compile a list of gc women

Re: SH and CH.

Being blunt, both of them have been the target of some defamatory and very unkind threads on this forum.

I understand that's personally hurtful and professionally damaging.

I have also seen many, many posts that positively quote their blogs/columns.

I'd also like to mention the beauty banks for women Sali has been instrumental in setting up - www.nesta.org.uk/feature/new-radicals-2018/beauty-banks/ and think it's a brilliant idea to which I've already contributed.

As I see it, there is a tendency from people (for whatever reason) who have been on the sharp end of a MN thread(s) to refer to MN as a "whole" community when that's simply not the case

MN has millions of registered users, many of whom only post on specific topics which are devoid of any controversy or offence.

The anonymity of MM provides a safe haven/outlet/support for women in abusive relationships.

For women living (and those having to learn to live with dying) with illness who need/want an outlet outside their family, because they fear/know that sharing those thoughts/feelings brings additional stress on loved ones.

For women supporting children/spouses with life limiting conditions.

For women in poverty who ask how to make a store cupboard of food last 3 weeks with ingenious recipes.

For women suffering from embarrassing physical post natal complications.

For women with mental health issues.

Women posting in these circumstances do so because of the anonymity MN provides.

So I can't help feeling sad about SH and CH posting and re-tweeting the FlyingLawyer.

I see the posts on twitter seem to have been deleted but the re-tweets remain...and in a way that's worse.

What are they supporting with these re- tweets?

The "demonisation" of MN or the right to be able to publicly name/shame/sue posters?

To be clear, I wasn't defending CH in my earlier post. I wanted to add some context for those who may not have been aware of the history of posts on S&B.

Thanks for The Times article.

Sorry - to be clear.

In my post SH is Sali Hughes and not the Flying Lawyer.

Re: the Times article the last sentence is gold.

Last night Ms Hayden said: “I have no current criminal convictions.”

Less is often more.....

I'm a little confused by SH take tho, as they seem to have taken Justine saying "Mumsnet did not oppose Ms Hayden’s application." as capitulation, or agreement of wrong doing.

It's worth bearing in mind that anyone can call themselves a lawyer..

I have no current convictions btw

‘I win’ take from Justine’s quote
I have no current criminal convictions
Twitter bio ‘legal rights activist’ and the Times article ‘Stephanie Hayden, the activist’ = lawyer

Maybe there is a wardrobe to Narnia or a rabbit hole or a looking glass, and we're on the 'wrong side'?

Seems to have made the Mail. Comments not being accepted www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6905503/Transgender-activist-wins-High-Court-battle-force-Mumsnet-reveal-identity-troll.html

Didn’t Steph tweet recently, something along the lines that she was not pursuing Linehan in order to concentrate on The Daily Mail/Scottow?

Not heard anything about the latter recently, but would have thought that if this still active (but in some way embargoed) reporting on any further legal activity by Steph is likely to be cautious but less than sympathetic.

I'm joining the 'grey rock' people in thinking we should ignore Hayden.

If Hayden is genuinely concerned about defamatory content, then Hayden can turn Hayden's fire on Kiwifarms and other places where the content is much, much stronger.

If Hayden's motives are different (e.g. wanting attention from people who are not scary, unlike Kiwifarms), then we might hear more sinister rumbles about databases, meetings and legal action. But lacking supply, it should gradually fade away.

I'm a little confused by SH take tho

As would 109% of people reading Justine’s comment. But SH has a very unique way of interpreting reality.

See also their interpretation of the dropping of GH’s case.

See also SH’s references to their criminal convictions.

I could go on.

Let’s just leave it at this, Grey Rock is still the best approach.

Lawyers said that if the personal details provided by “ALittleHelp18” proved to be fake, Mumsnet was not likely to be in breach of the order and that forcing a website to verify the accuracy of all their users’ details would be a step too far.

@HopscotchKing13 some of your comments I find incredibly nasty. Trans women do exist, and for the most part are just trying to live their lives. They are not all wicked, and they are not all angry.

I sincerely hope the women of MN do not rally behind this post and “give you their ears”.

Yes there are issues (safety for women etc) - we know this - but we should stick to these issues - not try to make it an all out battle between MN and trans women.

And yes, I’ve posted under an old name before anyone tries to look up my past posts to critique. And yes, I’m going to post and run - as I have to go to work, but so fed up of seeing MN’s reputation being dragged further down by posts like this. Not all MNetters feel this way.

Great post DeRigeur. I used to follow Sali H on various platforms and am a fan of her work, but I found she was very cliquey with her celeb mates and never interacted with the ordinary women who left comments on her instagram posts or replied to her on twitter. It made me really uncomfortable, so I unfollowed.

My impression of her is that her female solidarity is of the hashtag/designer t-shirt slogan type (although yes - her beauty bank initiative is fab) so it doesn't surprise me that she's willing to throw the 14 million women of MN under the bus because of a past personal grievance.

(Interesting to note from the twitter thread that one of her celeb mates appears to be Hadley Freeman. Take her out for a drink Hadley! Fill her in!)

Well done @Mumsnet for deleting that weird call to arms from King13 or whatever so quickly

🙊🙉🙈

Hello so if you have joined mumsnet and used some identifying information such as a real email address not a throw away one then what can I do?

Do I deregister?

I name change often but sounds like I should wise up.

The spin in that tweet must have caused severe dizziness.

Yeah whatshershame

I got a throw away email.

It’s a good idea on any site like this Not just mumsnet

Reddit etc

• Hello so if you have joined mumsnet and used some identifying information such as a real email address not a throw away one then what can I do?

Do I deregister?*

Clean up your profile page, PMs and change your email address, if you want. The real risk is from hackers and cockups like the recent error which let some users log into the wrong account.

If there is identifying information contained within posts that you're worried about- which are of course public - then you might want to deregister.

I imagine that the judge’s decision and the article do feel like a win to SH.

That’s because of what the goal is. SH doesn’t perceive the legal system the way that most people do. If your view of the legal system is that its there to deliver justice, to protect, or to right wrongs, then this doesn’t look like any kind of victory. If, however, your view of the legal system is that it can be used as a way to control the narrative, intimidate those you perceive as your enemies and validate your sense of grievance, then the judgement and the article would certainly deliver on that front. It’s a meaningless victory, as we can all clearly see, but I don’t suppose that’s terribly important to SH, because the ploy worked - control and intimidation communicated as planned. Validation achieved.

Yeah but I don’t feel controlled or intimidated. By this

I just think of all the brave women across the world who suffer inprisment floggings and murder jus5 for standing up for their rights

And this seems like nothing.

Won’t be controlled or intimidated 💪

Not repeating it, but Dr H and Steph are on something of a roll this morning.

Including a definition of doxxing. The victims of whom are seemingly a very select group.

You’ll find me at [email protected].

Me too, littl 💪🏻

To be fair to Hayden, their initial goal was to get a court order they could wave around to claim a victory and use that for PR purposes. That's been achieved and they are getting a platform to talk about "Mumsnet and transphobia" as a result.

Civil litigation is about leverage to get other people to do what you want. It's not about justice or righting wrongs. Well, that's how an experienced lawyer would generally see things.

The Daily Mail article actually illustrates this rather well.