Safe schools alliance

[BBCBias001]

There was a thread but it went for some reason. Anyway, the safe schools alliance have launched a website. Looks good.

Seconded.

I bought two fab dresses via the side bar ads couple of weeks ago.

Don’t shut down conversations about safeguarding, Mumsnet HQ - I can vouch for at least one of the founders of SSA who I know via Facebook.

I’ve poked the bear and asked Mimmy to point out exactly where SSA are asking for funds.

We don't allow advertising and promotion on Mumsnet, so it's best to contact them off the boards.

This is quite alarming to me. This wasn’t an advertisement or a ‘promotion’. It was about a child safeguarding organisation. Lots of good groups are able to share their stuff here, we all share and discuss groups, Jean Hatchet has made many posts about her riding for murdered women... I could give a lot of examples.

I’m disappointed MNHQ haven’t come to explain. This is not acceptable.

Sorry for the delay in responding.

Just to clear up a few questions that are being asked here and on the thread in Site Stuff (which we'll be posting on too). We removed the original thread because our site rules state we don't allow organisations to post primarily to promote themselves. Here's the full text from our Talk Guidelines -

We have no problem with people posting the odd link to other sites/blogs that other posters might find useful or interesting. But we'll delete anyone's attempts to spam the boards with links, as a way of promoting their own product, services, survey or e-petition, as it annoys our members.

We only allow fundraising for registered charities to be promoted on our Talk boards - and these threads should be posted on the Charities noticeboard. This is in the interest of protecting our users as we aren't able to vouch for or endorse individuals running crowdfunding campaigns or anything along those lines.

This is a blanket rule, regardless of how worthy an organisation or a cause may be.

As you can see, this thread is still up and running, and we have no problem with people discussing Safe Schools Alliance UK and the work they do, nor with anyone linking to their website. We're not trying to shut down discussion, but we have to apply our guidelines consistently.

We've been in touch with SSAUK behind the scenes to explain our position. Hopefully this thread can get back on track now.

We've been in touch with SSAUK behind the scenes to explain our position.

Is their account still banned? Or are they allowed to comment generally again?

Lang the account is still banned. And MN did not contact us until after they banned us.

but we have to apply our guidelines consistently

And yet you do not do this at all. It depends on the moderator.

Mumsnet, it seems you are not being transparent with us.
Why not?

But we'll delete anyone's attempts to spam the boards with links, as a way of promoting their own product, services, survey or e-petition, as it annoys our members.

It doesn’t actually. Nobody who is a genuine user is annoyed that a group that DOES NOT FUNDRAISE is sharing free information on child safeguarding. They’re not promoting a product or service!

The link seems to be working Ok for me

safeschoolsallianceuk.net/

Of course don’t click on it if you are against safeguarding.

we'll delete anyone's attempts to spam the boards with links, as a way of promoting their own product, services, survey or e-petition

One thread does not really meet the definition of spam.

What product? What services? What survey? What e-petition?

The first two of these surely refer to commerce. This site is not commercial. The third to a personal benefit (recruiting participants to benefit the creator's project). This site is a resource for parents: using it confers no benefit on the creators. There is no petition.

I would like to know exactly how one thread announcing the launch of a website breaks these guidelines. Could you please explain further.

This is a blanket rule
I'm sorry @JoMumsnet, but what is? I read what you wrote but I still don't understand.

It seems to come down to the difference between posting the odd link (okay) and spam(ming) the boards with links (not okay).

And you think SSAUK were spamming the boards - how do you define spamming the boards? How many links are included in the odd link? Did SSAUK even include a clicky link in their OP?

Or is it simply that no members are allowed to mention their own website? If that is the rule, it would be useful for you to spell it out in the talk guidelines.

Does this mean that if Man Friday was to start today, the group would be banned from posting?

They're not spamming the boards.

I think HQ have been misinformed by Twitter stirrers.

I think HQ have been misinformed by Twitter stirrers

I think that's absolutely right. For whatever reason, this board attracts some pretty obsessive attention from some people who will do anything to misrepresent what we say and shut us down. it looks like MNHQ don't always take that into account

I’m sure Mumsnet supports its users sharing knowledge and expertise on safeguarding. IFWR is particularly interested in safeguarding right now and at any given time there are likely to be a number of threads discussing different aspects of it. Information available on Safe Schools Alliance UK is therefore likely to be relevant to more than one thread. It wouldn’t be spamming to mention it in those circumstances?

Personally I have no involvement with SSAUL but I’m impressed by their achievements and resources.

I saw the original thread last night - it was swooped on by EeveePHD ( in much the same way as the first page of this thread) . Then it went poof. Zapped.

The same OP was also posted in the Staffroom. It was there for longer but has now gone too.

@JoMumsnet This decision makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. There was no 'spam' as it was the first post announcing an extremely important and useful resource for parents, on a parenting forum. It doesn't reach the definition of 'spam' by any stretch of the imagination. Neither was it promoting any products, services, petitions. They didn't ask for money, there is no crowd funder. This strikes me as abuse of a sensible rule regarding people using MN for marketing purposes, for ideological purposes. What the hell is going on behind the scenes there?! You will only embolden authoritarian and extremist trans activists with crappy, poorly thought through, unevidenced decisions like this.

I feel a bit responsible for this.

I replied to the initial thread yesterday saying that this was a very welcome resource and that perhaps they might in the future consider a crowdfunder in order to raise funds for materials or whatever.

SSA did not in any way suggest that they were looking for donations.

I had thought that MNHQ had become a bit wiser to being manipulated by the gender extremists, but maybe it's a lesson that they need to keep learning.

@MNHQ Please can you come back and explain your previous post? None of us can make head or tail of it.

Is it that no one must refer to a website that they have a connection with? Sounds tricky to enforce, but okay. Or is there a maximum number of times - once is fine, twice is ban-worthy?

Or is it that any thread where someone comments "you should do a crowdfunder" will be deleted in its entirety?

It would be useful to know which of those is the blanket rule (or is it all of the above?) and you should probably broadcast it site-wide, as it affects all members.

yes, plenty have people have posted about their websites on MN - like the excellent wecantconsenttothis.uk for example, so this action by MNHQ seems strangely inconsistent and leaves me very

And this rule could be gotten around by SSA simply using a nondescript username and posting as if in a personal capacity.

Basically this rule encourages posters to be less honest. Not that I think for one minute the SSA would do that, but that’s the knock on effect of this kind of rule.

Bad times, Mumsnet.

Agree dumonde. I am part of SSAUK and am happy to share but felt we wanted a SSAUK presence on Mumsnet. We are still confused as to how our one post could be construed as spamming the boards for promotional purposes. And please don't feel bad @Popchyk It was a lovely thought.