Maya Forstater Case - Thread 2 for the Mumsnet Massive

[Bardonnay]

Thread 2!

Maya, thank you for standing up for all of us.

Yes, thank you Maya!

@MNHQ
You make unnecessary work for yourself and then complain it is so much work to moderate this board.
There is no earthly reason for you to remove all those names just to put them back when you do the most basic inquiry that you should have done before you deleted.

@MichaelMumsnet as a pp has said, sinister is the word for it. Who is leaning on you to censor women here, far beyond what is required by the actual court?

^^^^^^^^^^
All of this. Stop dancing to the tune of external puppet masters for no good reason.

Maya, I have met you a couple of times, just briefly, you struck me both times as a strong, determined woman. Clearly you have needed to summon every part of that strength in recent months, what you have done for women is amazing. Thank you

Maya, can't thank you enough for taking a stand on this. I know it's not over yet but getting even this far has made such a difference. Thank you.

Seconded..
You Rock Maya.. whatever happens, you've been nothing short of amazing.

Thank you Maya and Anya and all live tweeters and techy person up thread.

Oh FFS.

I'm beginning to think MNHQ needs an entry in the capture thread.

Michael!

The judge said there are no reporting restrictions. THE JUDGE.

On whose behalf are you censoring the thread?

Thanks for bearing with us - the thread is open and we'll go back and edit accordingly.

When you say edit accordingly do you mean reinstate all the names you removed unnecessarily or that you’re going to censor us some more?

@michaelmumsnet edit according to what? Certainly not principles of open just it seems! According to the preferences of Clair Quentin and other activists who wish to prevent discussion of women’s rights on a women’s rights board?

As LangCleg said

"On who's behalf are you censoring this thread?"

It really is a question for a Pulitzer winning type of investigative journalist (or documentary maker)

Maya. Thank you

And her team

The thread has been unlocked for now and under greater scrutiny than any other thread - and being edited accordingly.

That's reassuring.

It's fascinating to think that someone - I'm guessing a witness - is so very rattled by the judge's not granting anonymity or imposing reporting restrictions.

Why would the witness possibly expect that?

Had they been led to expect that from the Respondent's lawyers?

Or does the witness routinely decide on the spot that their wants must be the law now?

@MichaelMumsnet I also hope by “editing” you mean that you will reinstate the posts in full. I’d also like to know whether the decision to make deletions/lock the thread were made by MNHQ without bothering to check that THE JUDGE had already approved of live tweeting without restrictions re naming witnesses, or whether you received pressure from the witness(es) or other parties.

Why does MNHQ keep suggesting that they're doing things to comply with laws or regulations that don't actually exist? The only rules are the (overly complicated, hard for users to follow and apparently challenging for the mods to apply with any sort of consistency)
guidelines" that you yourselves wrote!

accordingly

According to what? What the people that report the thread are saying you must report?

In many ways MNHQ’s special rules for the trans debate are also on trial. Those rules don’t allow us to state categorical truths either. Maybe they’re feeling twitchy about the potential ruling

I surmise that CQ is - rightly - embarrassed by CQ’s performance on the witness stand and pressure is therefore being placed on MNHQ to prevent CQ being identifiable from the threads.
I find it amusing that CQ sees themself as vulnerable when, of all the witnesses, CQ was the only one to talk over the female barristers and generally behave in a high handed manner. The other witnesses, whose names have been reported in the press and whose names MN have not initialised conducted themselves at the tribunal with far more humility.
I am curious as to whether MNHQ always knew there were no reporting restrictions but decided to use ‘reporting restrictions’ as a pretext for editing anyway.

post-edited by MNHQ to clarify that with no reporting restrictions in place CQ here refers to Clair Quentin.

Does MNHQ have any sort of legal counsel? If someone reports a post and goes all BTW THIS IS ILLEGAL, YES SUPER ILLEGAL, JUST LIKE MISGENDERING AND SAYING MEAN THINGS ABOUT SUSIE GREEN, TOTES ILLEGAL I SWEAR do they just assume the person saying so must be correct? Because honestly, I've seen people make all sorts of odd claims about what's "illegal" in relation to gender stuff that have turned out to be nonsense.

Ah well, Mx Quentin should be pleased to know they is definitely on the MN FWR anti-woman watch list now.

Let's give Michael a break. The editing in itself is informative.

"C" appears to have issues with ordinary mums scrutinise his testimony in a case that could have huge ramifications for many women. "C" is also appears happy to advise Government/public sector groups, and is presumably paid for his efforts. Yet women dont appear to be accorded the same opportunities.

The fly on the wall in MN towers probably had an interesting night. I am looking forward to Justines book describing life on the front line.

In many ways MNHQ’s special rules for the trans debate are also on trial. Those rules don’t allow us to state categorical truths either. Maybe they’re feeling twitchy about the potential ruling

These threads really need archiving incase it becomes illegal to have these discussions.

Why were MNHQ pressured to shut it down, I wonder. Is it that some people were shocked by how foolish they ended up sounding, and complained? How their bullying was so well illustrated on the witness stand? Their narcissism?

Maybe that's it.

Sorry. I'm on my phone. Dropping hints for the techy ones.