@JustineMumsnet please consider reinstating LangCleg after a temporary suspension. It would help so many of us. Mumsnetters please sign!

[loveyouradvice]

@JustineMumsnet

We the undersigned would like to ask you to consider reinstating LangCleg after a temporary suspension, as you have done with others.

Or perhaps, consider reinstating her for a three-month trial period and then reviewing.

We know you will have realised, from the two other LangCleg threads, how much her wisdom and constant voice in support of robust safeguarding is welcomed by so many on this board. It is truly a great loss to us, and to the depth of discussion about such important matters.

We hope Justine that you might do two things:

• Review what actually happened with LangCleg and decide whether it really was so dire that she deserves permanent expulsion, or whether perhaps there was an element of misunderstanding on your moderators' part (which Michaeel's post indicates may have happened) and, that perhaps she was being held to an inappropriately high standard compared to others
• Review the process, so that strong voices on here are able to continue to be heard for the benefit of all Mumsnet users

Or perhaps do neither of those things, and just reinstate her because you recognise how important your other Mumsnet users find her.... I guess the equivalent of a Royal Pardon,

Please hear our voice.

And everyone on here, please do sign if you want LangCleg back - just that, a signature with any discussion continuing on the LangCleg 2 thread. A signature to say you want her back and hope that @JustineMumsnet will consider this.

Thank you - both my fellow mums netters and Justine

For what it's worth, I don't think anyone is irreplaceable. Some people leave a bigger hole than others but new posters step up all the time.
What I don't think we should ever stop talking about is how a poster who was knowledgeable about safeguarding was targeted and constantly reported.

Signed.

me too - signed

Signed.

I too hope that there is a way for Lang to come back here.

*Allowing males into female spaces makes those spaces mixed sex
Humans can’t change sex *

Humans can legally change sex. No-one is silly enough to believe in your magical chromosomal but "oh-so-amusing" straw man.

And that's why, here at least, if you're not willing to "compromise" over the necessary legal fiction, I don't see why MNHQ should "compromise" over their guidelines.

No-one has been barred from a vital service for their beliefs, it's not a martyrdom. No-one is irreplaceable. And after all you it's not as if Spinster, GC-Reddit and GC Discord aren't available for all your GC discussion needs. Women have always found ways to make their voices heard and always will.

Just because something's legal doesn't make it true. Or moral. Or acceptable.

Nobody believes that. Even the ones that say they do.

Women have always found ways to make their voices heard and always will.
Yes indeed and, whether Lang returns or not, we will keep on being heard on here too, thank you. And what we will keep on asking is why a poster who was generally civil and who understood safeguarding would attract as many reports as Lang did.

And what we will keep on asking is why a poster who was generally civil and who understood safeguarding would attract as many reports as Lang did.

This ^^

What I don't think we should ever stop talking about is how a poster who was knowledgeable about safeguarding was targeted and constantly reported

Yep

Even without the safeguarding bit to be fair so some of the regulars who have been targeted

To....not so

Women have always found ways to make their voices heard

I'm not sure that's true, actually.

LangCleg wrote Thu 21-Feb-19

"How did the scandal of TV entertainers grooming and exploiting children get so bad before anything was done?

How did the scandal of Catholic priests grooming and exploiting children get so bad before anything was done?

How did the scandal of on-street gangs grooming and exploiting children get so bad before anything was done?

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."

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3512177-Julia-Long-asking-Munro-Bergdorf-about-child-exploitation?pg=12

People will talk about Lang and safeguarding as long as they want. Get over it.

But we do have to accept that MN is a commercial, for-profit enterprise. It exists to make money - not facilitate safeguarding discussions.

If safeguarding discussions with a certain poster are making staff miserable (for whatever reason) it makes commercial sense to ban that poster. Done.

We need to not email MN or @ them on this issue as they are likely to regard it as rude and ban us.

MNHQ confirmed she wasn't abusive, Saverland, merely rude.

The lesson to the rest of us is that when a member of the admin team deletes a comment and does not answer when you ask what guideline you violated, it is viewed as rude to give them the benefit of the doubt and to ask a second or even a third time.
Sometimes they will explain, after the second or third request, and other times they will ban you as they did Lang.

Agreed, Bewilderness, it’s best to minimise interactions as much as possible.

I remember Lang used to have quite friendly exchanges with mods in-thread (offering wine? I think). It all seems quite incongruous.

But we’re on notice now, so best to go low or no contact.

And the other lesson I have taken from this is to do with why the mods were getting all those reports about Lang in the first place. Her posts are still up there for anyone to read - she didn't suffer fools gladly but she was civil and kept mostly to the rules, because she wanted to keep talking. Who wanted to stop her and why? That's the real story for me.

I miss LangCleg.

She is so clever and funny and expressed my thoughts and had it all typed up before if even worked them out myself.

It is quite clear why she was targetedThere are many who want us to take our eyes off safeguarding. It won't work. This is a site for parents built on women sharing. Child protection ain't going nowhere.

Signed.

Signed

Reposting from the 6th Feb:

UPDATE
I've had a final response from MN:

We're afraid that we won't be reinstating LangCleg's account.
Best,
MNHQ

I'm not going to challenge, as I know they've read all the threads, and we can't assume that this isn't Langs choice

I'm not sure if MN are still reading these threads, or would now be more open to revisiting, but their last message to me on the 6th seemed final. A new request might be worthwhile?

I still want Lang back on these boards. She is brilliant and I miss her insights.

girl I think best to leave it for longer... no matter how politely you worded it, I fear it may be construed as rude (as Lang’s communications were) and you would risk being banned yourself..

I think discussions has been moving to other platforms for a while now (which is a pity for we who like the MN format). But prob inevitable where there is a genuine philosophical divide between staff and user base (of FWR, that is)