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)

Lots of sad, angry little men on twitter. Bless their hearts. God forbid an actual woman should stand up for women. Only the menfolk and their feelz matter

What a disappointing decision, MNHQ.

Lang has always made it luminescently clear that references to coercive control re MNHQ are always meant in the way that it is the Monitors who are coercively controlling, and MNHQ are being used by them as a proxy. Some may disagree with this, but it is surely not a bannable offence?

^This is a very important point. It's hardly abusive, is it, to point out how the special rules and kid glove treatment of certain topics can be exploited by malicious individuals?

The gleeful, sadistic nastiness in those tweets.... bloody hell @MNHQ have you seen that? I have sympathy for your situation, but are you aware of what you're enabling towards your own members?

There are no few things I've seen that have left me feeling sick since I fell down this rabbit hole, but that is one of the nastiest and ugliest I've yet seen. NO ONE on MN FWR, has ever behaved like that. Not ever.

Lang was the in-house expert on child safeguarding.

And you can tell exactly who disagrees with child safeguarding, because they’ll be celebrating Lang’s ban on Twitter.

@MNHQ As so many other posters have posted, LangCleg was invaluable withe her input on child safeguarding (amongst other issues). As the mother of a child who desperately needs safeguarding, you have just made my world that little bit smaller today. Please reconsider.

MNHQs assurances are worthless. We all know we can be banned at the click of a TRA finger.

Along with Datun and a few others, Lang is* one of my top 5 MNers. What a horrible decision.

*deliberate use of present tense.

Fucking hell @MNHQ
You are now part of the problem.

Lang is on Spinster if you want to pop over with messages of support

And you can tell exactly who disagrees with child safeguarding, because they’ll be celebrating Lang’s ban on Twitter.

This^ bears repeating over and over and over.

When rules are poorly explained, unfair and dishonestly applied, not complying with them is an act of personal integrity

Lang

Wilmalovescake
So true.

And its the men who are stirring up trouble

So people are now boasting of how easy it is to manipulate MNHQ into banning people?

Horrendous decision, MNHQ.

She won't be forgotten on MN however.

Neither will her deep understanding of safeguarding, her insistence on centring the needs of children and women, or the erudite good humour with which she communicated.

And you can tell exactly who disagrees with child safeguarding, because they’ll be celebrating Lang’s ban on Twitter.

This^ bears repeating over and over and over.

And again.

Cui bono once again. Who benefits from shutting up inconvenient women who bang on about the exploitation of children and coercive control...? What populations are interested in that conversation not happening on a parenting board, hmmm?

It’s a real head scratcher.

Another lurker delurking to say this is a disappointing decision. Echo the poster who said " if even the most calm and measured posters find it impossible to work within the random nature of the guidelines, you could revise the guidelines?"

Hope the press picks up on this. ‘Mumsnet bans child safeguarding expert’. Go Times. Go Daily Mail.

Every time this happens it shows we are being monitored by these men who should not have the right to shut down women’s voices in a feminist forum. It is truly worrying when we have to meet secretly to discuss our concerns. Why is it only on this forum? Because they know brilliant posters like Lang speak the truth. But like the hydra, more feminists will spring up to take their place...such is the power of women

And you can tell exactly who disagrees with child safeguarding, because they’ll be celebrating Lang’s ban on Twitter.

This^ bears repeating over and over and over.

And again.

Yes, yes to this.

Lang was the in-house expert on child safeguarding

This is appalling.

Spinster, eh? Okay, then.

Thank you Dragon

I'd stayed off Spinster, loyalty to MN is strong but this is getting ridiculous. Women are being banned for not being polite enough about the males openly, gleefully, maliciously abusing them.

That isn't what MN is about, I've been here for years because it stood up for abused women. Members are here in the middle of the night holding the hands of a woman locked in the bathroom who thinks her jaw is broken by the man outside, or who is making an escape from the partner she's afraid will kill her, or the mum in an A&E department terrified with their kid, or the parent who's kid was bullied today at school - if it's a tool for the kind of person who writes and thinks the way the writer of those tweets do, who just wants to destroy the women who are here standing up for and being there for women, then I want no part of it. It's repulsive.

I am so disappointed you @mnhq Lang is a voice of reason in a sea of insanity. @justinemumsnet please consider reversing this ridiculous decision.

So people are now boasting of how easy it is to manipulate MNHQ into banning people?

Is this what you want @MNHQ. An important valuable voice on child protection removed because of harassment from TRAs?