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)

And ‘keeping an eye’, Big Brother or Big Fob Off?

Once again for those on twitter at the back - 1984 was not a manual.

'How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?'

It reads to me like Joss is claiming to have friends on the inside. But Joss is a self-identified troll and a PBP so who knows.

But other TRAs have had, in the past, as we know.

@MNHQ please bring Lang back. She's one of the most articulate, thoughtful, and knowledgeable posters here, and I've always admired the way she engages with other posters. Are your best content creators so expendable?

Is this a parenting site? Banning someone so knowledgeable about and committed to child safeguarding?

Who was served by banning her? Are the claims on Twitter true about being in touch with a certain TRA? (who gloated thus: )

Slowly, Gently; This is how a TERF is taken down

Bye LangCleg

Despite the post and thread, your tepid regurgitation of other people's thought's and writings that you spewed over Mumsnet TERFboard won't be missed

ta ra a bit—bab

What are those who are tickled pink by her banning offering Mumsnet? What are they offering parents who care about safeguarding issues?

Is it really so difficult to get the points made about coercive control?
This is so depressing. I know that Mumsnet was originally created as a support site for parents, so how can giving in to people who want to dismantle child safeguarding be considered being true to purpose?

Please bring Lang back.

Also, I can't get Wheetabix where I live, but if I could I would certainly indulge in the occasional hot milk banana Wheetabix delight. Maybe with condensed milk. Comfort food. I could use some comfort now, with such a blatant example of a woman I so greatly respect, someone I have learned valuable things from, being censored from a rare online space that is supposedly to be for and about us.

Please bring Lang back. She's one of the most prominent and most appreciated posters here, one of the ones who made this forum as visited as it is. Losing her is like losing a part of Mumsnet's soul.
(Which is why the truly toxic ones are gloating).

Well, if Prior’s telling the truth they’ve managed to both make it that bit harder to discuss child safeguarding on MN (at which point we have to ask exactly why anyone would consider that a good idea) and to trigger the return of R0wantrees.

Which I somehow doubt was part of the plan...

Because if you create a sacred caste of any group and silence anyone asking questions about individuals on behalf of the sacred caste, abusers will see, infiltrate, and groom and exploit children. That''s how."

Yes, and she said again a few days ago. Safeguarding can only work where there are no sacred castes.

I do wonder what the moderators brief is - do they have a checklist or point system? Who double checks their decisions? Do they have time to consider motives and check for patterns of reporting?

I’ve got a thread in Site Stuff regarding this, and all they’ll say is they have “lots of discussions” both internally and with the poster in question before banning.

But no comment - so far - on why a permanent ban vs a temporary suspension.

Totally prepared to accept that Lang deserved a suspension if they felt she was ‘harassing’ or ‘haranguing’ or whatever the latest phrase is. Everyone has limits and off days. Just a permanent ban makes no sense to me because her posting style has always been respectful and reasoned.

So.... whilst JP is obviously not a particularly coherent source of information what are you going to do about that @MNHQ ?

A public declaration that @HebeMumsnet has been chatting with JP about who to monitor, who to keep an eye on!

What is going on? Why is anyone discussing anything with a person known to vehemently disagree with anything GC, who Tweets about lurking here, looking for, setting up, "TERF" discussions to report bon Twitter etc, who has been banned from this site for trolling and is now gloating on Twitter?

After all the other issues with site security, ex staff members and possible doxxing, etc you know have the allegation that YOU, @MNHQ are actively looking for reasons to shut down GC voices, to invalidate fears over safeguarding, to give credence to the TRA position that any GC voice is hate filled. WHY THE FUCK WOULD YOU DO THAT?

And if you did not WHY THE FUCK WOULD YOU NOT TELL US? We are your backbone, the reason most members stay and post here, keeping your brand on trend.

You can't have us on the FWR board as your biggest draw (as per your own poll) and then shut us down because of the dissenting voices of people who aren't members, have been banned, who are the total antithesis of FWR posters!

So stop with the pathetic, rote, notice that makes no sense whatsoever. TALK TO US!

Actually given that we're still waiting for a response about the supposed cosy chats about banning people a PBP has been having with a member of the mod team I'd rather like @MNHQ to address the potential security concerns that raises. To be more specific - one assumes they know that sharing any information they have on users with someone who likes to email in complaints about users would be a violation of GDPR, right?

I mean, I'd like to be able to assume that, but who knows at this point.

On this thread, real women have stated that LangCleg has has helped them safeguard real children.
Mumsnet think there are more important things for a parenting website to consider. I feel sick.
I am so very glad this morning to see that ROwantrees has been keeping an eye.here.

Yes I'd also like to remind everyone that the ceiling for a GDPR/DPA breach is now £18 million pounds, or 4% of annual global turnover. The ICO takes a very dim view where carelessness or negligence with personal data can cause harm to a subject.

One of Prior's tweets, from screenshot above by Cwenthryth:

And I owe Hebe and Mumsnet nothing because finally someone did a bit of moderating at last??

About time!!

But I gave my word and I wont (sic) be rejoining under anymore (sic) fake accounts

The fact that an individual who is reporting from another platform is implying that MN don't generally bother with moderating, highlights the absurdity of taking reports from outside of Mumsnet's own system.

Anyone can claim anything about their reports and conversation with MN, and because they're not on here MNHQ have no recourse.

It leaves Mumsnet entirely unable to enforce what have become some of their most fundamental rules: reporting privately to mods rather than taking accusations public, and respect towards mods to avoid a hostile workplace environment.

In fact, it hangs the MN community team out to dry - particularly those with an unusual first name like Hebe. MNHQ can't delete what this person says, if it's a lie. They can't ban them or suspend them for unfairly accusing their mods of never moderating, or for taking accusations against a MN user public, or for implying that Hebe has been making deals with this non-member.

Taking reports from outside MN is really not fair to your staff. It is also not fair for members here, because as is proven by this individuals tweets, groups of people are making vexatious reports to pick off prominent Mumsnet members, to silence them and claim a victory. This has caused LangCleg to be banned. But to add to the indignity, she has then been subjected to this being crowed about by misogynists on Twitter and subjected to suggestions that they were in protracted discussions with MN about her, and that she lost her account due to a deal to get a PBP to not return.

Just another one of us shocked by this- Lang is one of the most long-standing, well-informed and eloquent on here. We can’t have key regular FWR posters being targeted and picked off like this- the motives are extremely clear. Please- stand up for women, MNHQ.

Welcome back R0wantrees, lovely that you’re around in these grim times for FWR.

Great to see Ro back
DancelikeEmmaGoldman brilliant, I like my weatabix with butter and marmite

@MNHQ

You need to get your priorities in order - safeguarding above all.

And probably address the rumours that previously banned posters are getting long time valuable posters banned.

Time to get off the fence and get behind women.

I’m only a lurker here, I know how valuable LangCleg is to the discussion, please reinstate.

I would be very happy with Lang as a banned poster having discussions with the mods on who to ban

Yes! Lang can start emailing, pointing who’s toxic, who the obvious disingenuous trolls are etc, that would be brilliant.

I shall miss her posts. One of those members who when they post, you feel like an adult has come into the room, finally.

Very bad decision MNHQ.

LangCleg is a calm clear voice selflessly prioritising the safeguarding of women and children.

But banning her won't do what her critics and our watchers want it to do. Because those left here we will work harder harder to make sure that we carry on asking questions and shining light.

Lang isn't silenced though as people can still read her posts here and elsewhere, and can learn from them and post more themselves.

Banning people and trying to suppress one particular view never works. Never worked in history in authoritarian regimes, will never work here. People still talk, in places harder to monitor, school yards, friends, family.

Truth can not be suppressed.

Another mostly lurker wanting to register my sadness and disappointment that Lang is banned. Her posts stood out as beacons of sense and clarity.
I clapped out loud when seeing R0wantrees was back. We need you more than ever now!
Am on spinster but rarely visit - will visit a bit more now.

In the current climate, what’s more important?

A moderator’s hurty feelz because one of the most well-informed posters on FWR presumably became (understandably) frustrated at the ridiculously labyrinthine illogical Special Guidelines that seem to change with no warning at every full moon and are impossible to adhere to because we’re rarely told the reason behind a a strike, a suspension, a ban (despite MN claiming that the individual will always be told, which has been demonstrably untrue)?

Or parents on a parenting site having access to knowledge about safeguarding children from an obvious expert?

Cui bono...

It seems to me @MNHQ that you have been totally played. Very embarrassing and also very damaging. Your loyal long term subscribers are totally against Lang Cleg being banned. It is very distasteful that you would allow a banned poster to have any influence on your policies if that has taken place. You need to have a rethink about how you are moderatng his forum!

Yes, OnlyTheTitOfTheLangBerg, cui bono indeed

It is very distasteful that you would allow a banned poster to have any influence on your policies if that has taken place. You need to have a rethink about how you are moderatng his forum!

I’m now trying to decide whether ‘his forum’ was a typo...

Mumsnet losing LangCleg is like the Globe losing Shakespeare.