Another one hiding in plain sight? Dr Bruce Hensel

[SunsetBeetch]

twitter.com/Sseltse/status/1194987547002359813?s=19

Bruce Hensel, Former NBC chief medical correspondent, and prominent trans rights campaigner arrested for asking 9-year-old for sexually explicit photos!

#inplainsght #safeguarding #brucehensel t.co/3mqUaFn478

nypost.com/2019/11/14/ex-nbc-correspondent-bruce-hensel-arrested-for-asking-9-year-old-for-sexual-photos/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

abc7.com/amp/ex-tv-medical-correspondent-arrested-by-lapd-juvenile-division/5624361/?__twitter_impression=true

Dr. Bruce Hensel, an Emmy-winning former television medical correspondent in Los Angeles and New York, was arrested today for allegedly asking a 9-year-old girl to send him sexually suggestive photos.

t.co/51vYH7lHeX

twitter.com/PatriotAM1150/status/1195038649810923520?s=19

The thread is about a peadophile Hebe, not a trans person, why would "they" be about transpeople on this thread????

Hello again, just popping back to answer a couple of questions.

CaptainKirk and PreseaCombatir - yes, the thread is about a paedophile, not a trans person but it was mentioned in the very first sentence of the OP that this person was a prominent trans rights campaigner, so we think it's important to always make sure the distinction is clear.

Floral We really don't want you to interpret this as a wrist slap. That's not what we intended at all. And we certainly aren't holding you responsible for anything, honest.

We absolutely understand how difficult some of these topics can be to post about. We just felt some feedback on how to negotiate tricky topics like this might be helpful. We're really sorry we made the wrong call here. There are grey areas that are tricky to moderate so anything Mumsnetters can do to help make posts really clear and keep them firmly on the side of Talk Guidelines is always appreciated.

Floral We really don't want you to interpret this as a wrist slap. That's not what we intended at all. And we certainly aren't holding you responsible for anything, honest.

MNHQ, can you not see the way you are phrasing things here? I’m not even going to explain because it’s painfully obvious.

Furthermore it’s difficult to post on here because of the sites crappy guidelines.

tricky topics like this

Tricky topics such as paedophiles taking advantage of a weakened safeguarding environment campaigned for by a lobby group refusing to acknowledge that weakening?

Cos y'know, Hebe, that doesn't seem particularly tricky to me. And endless talk of careful parsing being necessary to discuss it is not a good look for a parenting website.

Disappointed at the way you have chosen to justify those deletes MNHQ. As a lurker it was/is clear and obvious what was meant.

No doubt some new poster will be along in a moment to liven up the thread and try to have it deleted that way.

yes, the thread is about a paedophile, not a trans person but it was mentioned in the very first sentence of the OP that this person was a prominent trans rights campaigner, so we think it's important to always make sure the distinction is clear.

The distinction between what exactly?
The distinction a pedophile who is a trans rights campaigner and one who isn't?

Once again....
The person in the op isn't trans, he's jumping on the activism because he's a peadophile and removing the GRC gatekeeping means he will get easier access to girls.

We have the right to point out that EVERYONE supporting these changes in their current form is supporting this access to children even if it's indirectly.

Ouch. Botty slapped but hey.

So who was on 'snoop 'n snitch' duty this weekend? IS there a rota or something?

I expect the snoop and snitch monitors are busy watching the Maya thread.

oh. In my imagination, they are like sparrows - when they fly and change direction and all flock together.

Biting their fingernails as their batshit ideology gets exposed as a tissue of lies and fantasy in a court of law, yes. I'd feel sorry for them. If this was a movie and they were being played by Robert Carlyle with a sad face.
But they're not.
So I don't.

Nah - he is too thin in my imagination. Feel sorry? I think not.

I generally feel sorry for Robert Carlyle in most things. Which I don't really understand, but there you go. Substitute your own personal sympathetic actor.

Still wouldn't work for this shower o' shite...

What are you afraid of @MNHQ ?

I was reading comments posted on various online articles about this case. Most run along the lines of "I hope this creep faces justice."

But I came across this one (in the middle of screenshot) at deadline.com. I think it crystallizes the reason for our worries about the more-and-more insistent "bigotry" framing of our (feminists', women's, parents'...) objections to removing basic safeguarding principles.

We need to be more precise and specific in our language because some of the mods are careless readers and assume that we are talking about transgender people, if the person reporting a post says so, when we are clearly and obviously talking about pedophiles and the sock puppets that monitor the boards?
WTF?

We absolutely understand how difficult some of these topics can be to post about

Because you’ve made it so, @MNHQ! If we didn’t have to wrap our language three times round the gatepost and back for fear of inadvertently breaking the convoluted and opaque rules you’ve enforced - half the time without telling us - it would be a lot easier for everyone to say exactly what they mean.

But when it comes to paedophiles, there are a lot of people who don’t want that clarity. And so it’s report and delete, report and delete. Ask yourself why those people want to gag discussions on safeguarding, @MNHQ, and then decide where you stand. Because at the moment, it’s not on the side of women and children.

So for clarify we can point out that someone is a nonce but we can't point out they have been involved in a campaign that has a side effect of making it easier for nonces to access children? And of course a nonce is going to Trojan horse campaigning for measures that make it easier to get access children by calling it something else because we're not yet (quite) at the point where nonces can say we're bigots for calling them nonces.

Or are we? I guess I'll know if this post goes, planning to screenshot to remind myself what I said as reasons for previous deletions have been a mystery to me

We need to be more precise and specific in our language because some of the mods are careless readers and assume that we are talking about transgender people, if the person reporting a post says so, when we are clearly and obviously talking about pedophiles and the sock puppets that monitor the boards?

Hebe - this is an important post. Please read it. Take it in. Do you see how close you are to echoing every domestic abuser ever? You made me do it.

We aren't making you do anything. You made a mistake moderating this thread. Take responsibility for that and don't turn around and say Only because you made us do it.

This is so frustrating! I mean, I'm glad they removed Floral's strike (they never removed mine despite the thread making it clear that I had no idea I'd used a banned term), but the bit about the guidelines making it really hard to moderate...well, you wrote them. We, the users, are not responsible for the guidelines making this forum really hard to moderate (and I'm sure it is). We, the users, have consistently asked that if we must have special guidelines for this topic they be made simpler and clearer.

I know the mod team must be frustrated by how much time this is taking out of their days but the thing it, it's that time consuming because they wrote rules that are complicated, confusing, and difficult to apply. They could rewrite them at any time!

I know the mod team must be frustrated by how much time this is taking out of their days

This whole debacle appears to have occurred because one or more of the moderating team did not recognise the term monitors or to whom it applied. It's hard to imagine spending more than five minutes a day on this board without coming across this nickname half a dozen times. So y'know. I'd suggest the time's not being spent that well. Sorry, MNHQ - but it's true.

Well I'm glad that Floral's post was reinstated and a strike removed but jeez.

I'm tired and my take away at the moment is:

• We're allowed to talk about pedophiles and their evil abuse if they're not trans / adherents of TRA ideology

• We're NOT allowed to talk freely about pedophiles and their evil abuse if they are trans or even just a TRA (as in the case of the individual pedophile who is discussed on this thread).

I mean do clarify if I've got it wrong, but this seems to be how the rules work around here.

Also, given that we're apparently not allowed to generalise, also not allowing us to use sex based pronouns (so we have to use 'they' all the time) is really unfair.

Don't mind me.

I'm just here for the upside down writing.

Welcome back, Floral

Have I got this straight @MNHQ?

We're allowed to talk about this man being a paedophile?

But we're not allowed to talk about him supporting an ideology that calls for the removal of safeguards for children which would make it much easier for paedophiles like him to access children to abuse?

Not even if we make clear that most supporters of that ideology are not paedophiles and their opening the door to paedophiles is an unintended consequence of their demands?