Stonewall drop Mermaids?

[ScrimpshawTheSecond]

Seems Stonewall used to direct young people to Mermaids. But the link has been removed from the page?:

www.stonewall.org.uk/help-advice/coming-out/coming-out-young-person

And the page that used to be on there appears to be blank:

www.stonewall.org.uk/organisations/mermaids

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark, y'all.

I'm sorry to say I don't think the wheels are coming off Mermaids any time soon. I don't think there's been any mojor shift and the BBC and two isolated tweeters deleting Mermaids seems to be it.

I think more than that. Is being done very quietly. I might be wrong but...

There is the NSPCC which was posted on Fair Cop a couple of days ago and unusually the tweet is unavailable, and on here on another thread plus others such as Childline, Children in Need I think

I would expect children's organisations and charities to be cautious and remove links. Safeguarding might cause them some major issues in the future. They're all still aware of Savile

Hi, I think Stonewall have since said they had been reorganising their website. When I had first clicked on that link, there was a page titled Mermaids that was blank - they've since reinstated it. Or moved it, or something. It's coming up 'not found'. But that could still just be a website reorganisation.

Apologies if I passed on a misunderstanding or duff information - I'm not really sure what was going on.

I do still think there seems to be a certain amount of quietude. We'll see, I suppose.

That’s not how you do a big site reorganisation. You mirror the site, do your changed then switch sites, you don’t do death by a thousand cuts on a live site.

Aha! Mirrors! I knew it had something to do with them. And smoke?

@SerenityNowwwww

That’s not how you do a big site reorganisation. You mirror the site, do your changed then switch sites, you don’t do death by a thousand cuts on a live site.

that's odd - Nancy K mentioned 'a creaky, slightly elderly website' as being at fault, yet the website was rewritten in 2017 - I know technology moves fast but I don't think three years counts as 'elderly'.

I agree Serenity - a well executed upgrade would not usually be visible to users as that was. Obviously they didn't intend to remove the page permanently so just a poorly run re-org project?

a well executed upgrade would not usually be visible to users

Perhaps it was only visible to cervix-users.

Looks like the tide is going out, leaving the mermaids stranded and flapping...

@Xanthangum

a well executed upgrade would not usually be visible to users

Perhaps it was only visible to cervix-users.

maybe we accidentally picked it up on our 'mum radar' - mainly designed for detecting the little DCs being up to no good but was there interference on the line....?

@NearlyGranny

Looks like the tide is going out, leaving the mermaids stranded and flapping...

Great that.

The wheels of court cases turn slowly
but I can imagine many organisations taking legal advice to restructure
their websites and information pages
so that when the Excrement interacts with the ventilation device
they can pull those pages PDQ without wrecking the rest of their websites

Don't the Law Society frown really hard on people who give "informal" legal advice? Not covered by insurance etc...

A friend of mine who is very GC happens to manage information pages targeted at parents. The first thing she did when she started was to discreetly remove any links to mythical female sea creatures on the basis that they stink!
No legal intervention, just a strongly held view.
She did retain the link to the NHS information pages.