LangCleg

[dragongirlx]

I am a long time lurker but infrequent poster here but I needed to bring this to everyone's attention.
I have found out that Mumsnet HQ have banned the fabulous LangCleg simply for repeatedly pointing out the repeated times coercive control has been used by the moderators to stop women talking.
I understand it started with a conversation when a post was deleted because she allegedly used a sweeping generalisation but they couldn't or wouldn't confirm the generalisation and when she challenged them they decided to ban her on the basis of previous comments.

So it now seems pointing out coercive control is now grounds for being banned, thus proving that coercive control is being used.

I for one would like @MumsnetHQ to provide an explanation here as this is really not on

(also taking bets on how long before the thread is deleted)

So when the worm crawls out of the woodwork, their intentions become more clear.
Power, it's all about the power Hebe. I would hope that's clear to you now. True or not. Joss knows you and will target you, you may be on the slippery slope, just be very careful. When you dance with the devil in the pale moonlight, watch your back and make sure the knife doesn't slip in.

Well, looking at the type of posts written by Joss compared to the type of posts written by Lang, I certainly know which one I'd have faith in.

I haven't been on fwr much lately, but I've been doing plenty of talking in real life and even people who were parroting the no debate you bigot line a year or two ago are coming round. Shutting women down online won't stop us talking offline.

Gawd Lang is so clever and kind and KNEW ABOUT SAFEGUARDING

SAFEGUARDING

Prior was booted off here.

More than once.

And has just thrown Hebe, and by extension MN and their mods under a bus.

Nice 'ally' you have there @MNHQ

Can't have discussion of safeguarding on a site full of mothers, littl, it upsets the foxes and leads to angry declarations about the hens being fox-phobic.

Joss has been booted off and then boasted about sock puppeting back in. I think it's hard for MN to keep on top of anyone who is determined to disrupt. There is only so much they can do to keep track of PBPs.

I’m pretty sure that’s just more bullshitting from Joss tbh, they were banned so surely mnhq wouldn’t be daft enough to be in conversation with them about who to ban next. Although frankly you never know

What a shame! Shame on you MNHQ!

If Prior is lying about collaborating with moderators to get rid of women, then now is exactly the time to make that clear.

Vitriol

Yes. I mean, what's the game plan ? Pick off anyone who talks sense so that FWR can get back to being about...what ?

The definition of women as a class, and the rights of women as a class on the basis of their female sex IS feminism.

Maybe the name of this space to be changed to 'Ladies Chit Chat On Irrelevant Issues" to better reflect what is allowed to be said.

The JP claim makes me think of Lang’s extremely eloquently and clearly expressed first rule of safeguarding - that ‘secret’ conversations are the first Red Flag and erode boundaries which should be shored up by creating an environment where privacy is more important than sunlight.

JP and ilk ‘discussing’ with MNHQ mods would certainly be ironic.

Pick off anyone who talks sense so that FWR can get back to being about...what ?

Nappies. Prams. Biscuits. Possibly we're allowed to discuss period poverty if we're careful not to mention who gets periods and who does not?

Perhaps we could repost a Lang post every day for a while ?

Or does that break the 'rules' ?

Shit. She will be missed. I am another long-time lurker who welcomed her posts.

Possibly we're allowed to discuss period poverty if we're careful not to mention who gets periods and who does not

Risky, Kittens, risky.

If someone like Joss was claiming me as an ally I'd want to make the lack of truthiness involved in that claim very clear indeed, so floor is yours, Hebe.

Oh, JP's words are just background noise; experience proves they're often either lies or tedious shit-stirring, it's a coin-flip as to whether there's any truth in them.

I still don’t understand what she did?

Accusing moderators of coercive control was it? Is that really so bad? Why not respond explain your opposing view as moderators and suspend if really necessary?

Ban seems heavy handed, and a bit like you can’t win the game, so you’re running off with the ball.

It’s your site so you’re free to do that I guess. Bit shit though isn’t it.

Horrified by this.

How can a decision to ban a poster who prioritises safeguarding, as a member of a parenting site, be justified?

Her wealth of knowledge and clarity of thought are a real loss.

I think this was a bad call MNHQ.

Given JP (OfLang) is a multiple times PBP, surely that's not true?

Pretty certain they wouldn't chitchat with random twits on Twitter that they have already banned on here multiple times.

The problem is, they don't know who they're talking to, do they?

And in the meantime, again, the user base is making it very clear that a. we're not happy that Lang was banned, b, we want her reinstated, and c. if that's not going to happen the least MNHQ can do is explain why.

(I mean, I know why, but I want to see them say it openly.)

Joss has been booted off and then boasted about sock puppeting back in. I think it's hard for MN to keep on top of anyone who is determined to disrupt. There is only so much they can do to keep track of PBPs.

A few months ago I told MN about a nasty little pip squeak who'd bragged on Twitter about being banned from MN and IP addresses and was just about to attempt getting on again. He did and he posted his usually crappy P-Rick speak.

But still MN did not do anything - though they did say they'd look into it.

So here we had a screenshot saying he was banned, a new lig in and nada from MN.

Yet Lang is sent packing when she genuinely contributes so much, as opposed to some weirdo post teen who spends his student days hanging out on Mumsnet. Students today...

I wouldn't put it past JP to shit stir

It's the only thing Prior knows how to do.

Accusing moderators of coercive control was it

No. Suggesting that moderators were not recognising coercive control when applied to them, and to the women on this board.

The pertinent part of the message to Lang was: Mumsnet’s simply not the right site for you and have rescinded your membership.
We do wish you the very best.
MNHQ
I guess they gave up on the snarky 'go well' valediction.