Lang Cleg 2

[TiredofthisBSbutIstandwithLang]

New thread as we got to 1000.

It's been repeatedly asserted that we were both abusers and proxies for abuse at various times - and the distinction doesn't feel very important when you're on the receiving end of it.

Are you denying that making those kinds of distinctions is in your job description? Do you simply go with your knee jerk reaction when you don't like what is said?
If so, we need to discuss that.

So LangCleg was banned. An expert on safeguarding was banned on a forum.... no I can't it doesn't make any more sense than yesterday

I think it's worth adding my voice to the many: I don't believe Lang was aggressive or rude to the moderation team. I'm not going to just take MNs word on this because, frankly, I trust and respect Lang. I don't think there is any chance she'd ever do that.

Disagreeing is not rude or aggressive.

Pointing out safeguarding concerns or abusive behaviour is not rude or aggressive. Yes, I can see how someone might be hurt by this because it's not really that nice to be told you're breaching safeguarding / acting in an abusive way or facilitating abusers. However, the response should not be to ban the person who is speaking an uncomfortable truth.

An expert on safeguarding was banned on a forum

OK, maybe I have to be walked through it.... but how is a poster on here an expert on safeguarding? I've seen it claimed a few times today.
Take the relationships board for example. It specifically states MN hasn't checked the credentials/qualifications of any poster.
Surely that's the same on the feminism board?
Do you know posters personally or just what words you're reading on a screen?

I think it's worth adding my voice to the many: I don't believe Lang was aggressive or rude to the moderation team. I'm not going to just take MNs word on this because, frankly, I trust and respect Lang. I don't think there is any chance she'd ever do that.
The comments she was banned for making are still there on the thread to be read by anyone.

We aren't gong to give you our bona fides, willis.

I agree that was a bit rude of me.. but it is baffling. We have all benefited from Lang's measured wise contributions, and most seem to be bewildered having not seen a hint of this so called aggression.

Many of us have been around the block a few times and it is my observation (from my personal and professional experience) that the generations below me are more sensitive and less questioning in general, and feel uncomfortable having a robust debate. Note this is blatant anecdatal generalisation on my part from my limited experience, but might go some way to explain the accusations of aggression when we are struggling to believe that having seen hundreds of Lang's (often frustrated or strongly opinionated) posts.

I was previously banned from the Australian mumsnet site after moderators repeatedly allowed their journalist staff to pose as regular users starting posts which they then turned into articles - exposing women escaping DV along the way several times. Complaining about this, pointing out that their staff member had breeched journalist code of ethics and calling HQ out for lying about the journalist in question (apparently a shaken and upset newbie, her media profile on her article said she had over a decade's experience) was enough to have me banned.

So I am familiar with mods disregarding women's voices for spurious reasons, but disappointed that it is still happening. 2 threads asking for an appeal of this decision and one fob off of a reply.

We aren't gong to give you our bona fides, willis

Oookay

An expert on safeguarding was banned on a forum

OK, maybe I have to be walked through it.... but how is a poster on here an expert on safeguarding? I've seen it claimed a few times today

Yes, I had pause for thought at a post saying how much a poster relied on Lang Cleg's guidance. Really, if you are in a position in real life of dealing with the safeguarding of children I don't think you should be relying on an anonymous poster on a non- specialist chat forum.

As an aside, Radio 4's part 3 of 'Orwell in Five Words' is on.
This episode 'Big'

"Throughout the 1940s, Orwell grew alarmed at the rise of the ‘oligarchical collectivists’ – the cadres of unaccountable technicians and managers on whom superstates – and large organisations – depend.

Free market economics was supposed to have upended all that – so do Orwell’s anxieties have anything to tell us about today’s corporations and big tech companies as well as resurgent authoritarian states? The conservative writer Ferdinand Mount, who once worked with a thinker who shaped Orwell’s ideas, argues that the oligarchs are back."
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000dgxz

I don't however recall Lang being rude or aggressive.

I don't however recall Lang being rude or aggressive

It's more subtle than outright rude and aggressive.
More mock you, make out you're being stupid, twist your words.
As I said upthread hard to explain unless you've been on the receiving end.

Willis in the wake of the Maya case, do you really think anyone would be stupid enough to doxx themselves to satisfy your 'curiosity' on their credibility?

Really, if you are in a position in real life of dealing with the safeguarding of children I don't think you should be relying on an anonymous poster on a non- specialist chat forum.

All adults are responsible for Safeguarding children & vulnerable adults. Parents have core responsibility to Safeguard their children.

Willis in the wake of the Maya case, do you really think anyone would be stupid enough to doxx themselves to satisfy your 'curiosity' on their credibility?

Where have I even mentioned doxxing, just for the record I say NEVER doxx yourself that's a daft thing to do!!

LangCleg repeatedly demonstrated her expertise and knowledge regarding safeguarding.
Which probably explains why some name her expert without reading her cv.

I'm wondering how that fits in with the demands for 'kindness'. Surely, on a feminism board, it's OK to prioritise kindness to women ?

It's not ever OK now to prioritise kindness to women. Anywhere.

All adults are responsible for Safeguarding children & vulnerable adults. Parents have core responsibility to Safeguard their children

I don't disagree with that - so why place so much reliance on an anonymous person on a chat board?

One of the problems with deleting our attempts to discuss safeguarding on FWR is that many people are unclear exactly what it requires of them.

I'm still, What The Fuck??!!

LangCleg banned???!!!!

A long-term poster, using the same name all that time. Very knowledgeable and eloquent and patient. Speaking to women on Mumsnet, and women understand straightaway what she says. Children should be protected, by law and practice.

She gets banned.

What The Fuck.

LangCleg repeatedly demonstrated her expertise and knowledge regarding safeguarding.
Which probably explains why some name her expert without reading her cv.

Indeed, as opposed those who lead with their CV 'credentials' whilst demonstrating they do not understand/respect Safeguarding in much they post.

so why place so much reliance on an anonymous person on a chat board?
You are free to do the research yourself if you do not wish to click the links that LangCleg has provided over the years.

Devastated......

I can't believe LangCleg has been banned....

Agree with
it came down to repeated accusations that we're coercively controlling. This is completely wrong, so terribly wrong.It was not about the moderators of Mumsnet using coercion to control the users of this site. NOT ever that. I watched Lang Cleg try to make it clear that she understood the pressures that the moderators are under, but she did feel quite strongly that the moderators of Mumsnet were being coercively controlled by outside monitors/activists.

Yes LangCleg made me feel safe too
And more importantly she enabled me to see things differently and understand more

She - with ROwantrees and Datun - are my trio of powerful reliable voices, with infinite patience and wisdom

Please @JustineMumsnet consider doing two things:

1. Review the full case of LangCleg and consider, just consider, that it might not be what it seemed to all of you at first glance and that a temporary suspension might be more appropriate
2. Review HOW it happened and whether your processes might be strengthened for the future

I for one am deeply grateful to Mumsnet for enabling these discussions to take place, and equally deeply saddened when immensely valuable voices about so many things and especially safeguarding are silenced.... I hate to contradict you, but I think Mumsnet is just the place for LangCleg and that your other members benefit hugely

Safeguarding is really hard. It doesn’t come naturally and it’s not intuitive.

A close relative has just had an exam in it together with a headteacher and a primary school’s safeguarding officer. They collaborated on two difficult questions and still got them wrong. He’s just a school governor and he undertook 20 hours of training.

Does Mumsnet undertake this level of training? Because it seems to me that it may well be that there’s a fundamental misunderstanding about whether observations concerning coercive control are intended as insults or as a wake-up call.

LangCleg repeatedly demonstrated her expertise and knowledge regarding safeguarding.

Doesn't automatically make you (general you) a safeguarding expert though. Could just as easily make you someone who's read a lot on the internet and makes you think you're qualified to make others think you are too.

Which probably explains why some name her expert without reading her cv
OK, bringing me back neatly to does anyone actually know anyone on here? She's named expert apparently but you don't have to read CV.
It's just taken as a given if you (general you) agree with them.