Babs wrote:
To clarify, the current facilitators would also be able to edit etc. but I feel an 'expert' eye just for the dedicated sub-forum works both ways, it shows trust and a willingness to compromise and work in a way we are all comfortable with.

Babs wrote: What's to trial Babs?

This is a single topic group we're discussing here.
They need a single topic platform to deal with that issue.
Ideally a screened members only access group. We can't provide that here.

From someone who has had dealings in the real world with this horrendous topic, I even question why you need a forum at all to do it.
When I was involved with kids in situations like this it was all pretty much held in-camera to protect the kids, their privacy and to prevent the alleged perpetrators from catching wind of what was going on.

If I were a nonce who heard of this group, I'd join up right away to be able to tip others off.

I have to go out soon so I can't spend time on this but I genuinely see no advantage to anyone attempting to house a group within a group.

ETA:
Example, the infamous number plates.
If you were aware that those were fake plates, used by xxxx then you would be able to determine who was being talked about and that victim(s) would not be at far greater risk because that was out there in the public domain.

This is damn serious stuff, not to be played with imo.

Last comment before I go.

If you have information about a child being abused or at risk, get it to the professionals asap.
Do not piss about on a forum discussing it first.

All points duly noted Feather though I don't believe that the DIF ex members had specific information about children at risk from my understanding where of course you would'nt piss about on a forum but would contact the professionals.

Im slightly confused..are people proposing some kind of action/investigation group via a subforum here?

My only thought would be internet detectivism and activism is very limited. You want to investigate institutional abuse, groups already exist in major cities and most town. Linking in with those would be more beneficial, helping them meet and organise etc.

I'm slightly confused here too.

So a group of people have joined solely with the intention of posting CSA threads, but when they're asked to provide substantial evidence to their claims, a dummy is spat out? I guess it must be hard for some people who have come straight from the DIF and are used to an us versus them scenario, as opposed to posting on your own volition. But that's what grown ups do.

The whole thing kind of reminds me of the group of people that move around Newcastle, setting up stalls and displaying 'fight racism' banners, whilst trying to get you to sign petitions that back their cause.

All well and good you might say, just that I haven't yet seen an African/Asian/Hispanic person amongst them. You know, someone who may have well suffered racism.

As long as anything posted is verifiable fact and not speculation or flights of fantasy. I have seen various forums deal with this subject and rather than being credible exposure of a very serious subject it has often been the opposite and done nothing more than poison the well for real victims who have been genuinely abused.
On some forums the subject has turned into nothing more than rubbernecking abuse porn. Not nice.
If the forum hosts a sub-forum for this subject do it right or not at all because the last thing we want is this place to become a home for the more ghoulish freaks who get a kick out of all the negative emotions that can become attached to issues like this.


It's not a circus, there are real victims although some of the crap speculated upon is pure fiction.

Most of its just pure fiction which could be considered libellous which would ofc end up with the entire forum disappearing off the internet and someone forking out some serious wonga for fines.

Not good tbh.

I'm 101% with wisehaven,mp and feather on this issue. Its worth noting for example that we know FOR SURE that the DIF mods inc sean are watching this forum VERY carefully. At the very least they will make pain for us the moment they see anything they can use as a weapon.
We already know for example that the moment someone uses the same nick on here its an auto ban on DIF.
There doesn't even need to be any malice or bad intent on the csa crowds side, many of whom I appreciate them being here and like many of their posts btw.

What a lot of the original SZ members wanted was a forum where there was no more bullshit, we stuck to facts and the intellectual bar was raised several notches above DIF. In truth, really its just kept us in contact with each other and some of us have met irl which we perhaps wouldn't have done on DIF, it brought us closer.

oioioi wrote:
Sounds good to me. I'm always in favour of trying things out rather than setting them in stone.

After 8 weeks we can assess the need for it to be members-only. As others have pointed out, however, "members- only" gives zero protection against libel. So this needs to be borne in mind.

Rushing here - do you all know that if anything dodgy's posted, deleting it won't solve the problem if it's already been seen by someone who wants to make trouble? Even after hard deletion, it can be retrieved by the police.

Gilly wrote:
The whole thing gives me bad vibes tbh.

Gilly wrote:
It's a risk which has to be assessed.

Certainly if (say) a DIF sock took a screenshot that would possibly be sufficient evidence in itself.

Verlander wrote:
That could happen in the next post regardless of a members only csa sub-forum.

Perhaps we need to assess exactly who is at risk.

Obviously the poster of the libellous comment but also the publisher.

Who, in this case is the publisher?

Verlander wrote:
Moi.

Yes but not quite as likely

I'm fucking gobsmacked at the direction this conversation has gone in.

Fucking gobsmacked.

oioioi wrote:
Well you are not in the UK..... are you? They would have to pursue you on your own courts?

Highly unlikely I would have thought.

oioioi wrote:
Yes, but you at least would not be encouraging it.

psketti wrote:


Which direction?
Verlander wrote:
I'm not sure on that.