Is it time to discuss the 'crime in the news' type threads you get on here

[ElizabethHoover]

And if they should be allowed whilst investigations are still going on. I am thinking of the McCann ones in the past, the Bristol murders one, the Karent Buckley one.

Should Mn not just have a policy where at the least people cant speculate on the crime until there is a conclusion - and its normally a tragic one - a bit like the restrictions on reporting during a criminal trial?

Personally I can't quite see what the point of them is and they do sometimes smack of sensationalism with a strong undercurrent of les tricoteuses thrown in.

The current one seems to have just degenerated into a slanging match.

[ElizabethHoover]

i hope that although this is a thread about a thread, its about the NATURE of these threads rather than to move the KB one here

[MangoJuggler]

Yes would stop the mawkishness and tittle tattle and the ooh he's a wrong 'un cos he's ugly/eccentric etc.

[ElizabethHoover]

because once a body is found, often someone is arrested and then we can't conject anyway.

[MangoJuggler]

Was talking in general not about a current thread.

[meditrina]

Many, many threads are deleted precisely because they become too speculative.

MNHQ posts reminders frequently.

There are however always some posters who think that they can post what they like (because speculation is permitted elsewhere). And who basically shout at those who ask them to rein it in, because it's not permitted here.

I think they tend to be over-zealous in deletions (I was deleted once on an April Jones thread for stating which family members had participated in a press conference as it was invasive of family's privacy, even though name had been announced at on-the-record press event which both broadcast and available on line).

There's a lot to be said for using 'chat' for initial 'be on the look out' type threads, as they self-extinguish (and often get more traffic than In The News)

[Feckeggblue]

I think posters love to criticse them too much for them to go. Gives them a purpose

Seriously, what are/ have been the consequences? Don't over egg MNs importance, most news sites have comments sections and only occasionally ban comments on a news story.

[ElizabethHoover]

remembers a poster having a dream about where mccann was and being encouraged to phone the police

trufact

[MangoJuggler]

I KNOW! A dream, yep yep yep you MUST tell the authorities.

[IrenetheQuaint]

I'm not aware of any news-specific sites that allow comments on ongoing missing person and/or open criminal investigation stories. (At least, the Guardian et al don't.)

They are hideous threads but I suppose MN have researched the legal position and decided to let them stand for the most part.

[MetallicBeige]

Totally agree, I made many reports on the recent Rebecca Watts thread, more times on that one thread than I've ever reported before in total tbh.
It was horrible, there's certain a certain type of poster who seem to love a good tragedy and descend salivating over any snippets, speculate widely and when challenged become abusive, wring their hands and say it's because they care so much as they walked past a sign to the town the person was in once and therefore it really affects them.

Anybody who challenges is told to do one. They are sad fuckers knitting round the guillotine.

[Chanatan]

If you dont like those sorts of threads then dont read them or block them,it seems a bit heavy handed to be discussing if that sort of thread should be allowed,surely we are all adults and if MN dont mind and the thread stays within the law then so be it.

[ElizabethHoover]

i think we are allowed to discuss them..

[AuntieStella]

MNHQ love reports, or at least always say they do.

If you think posts are wrong/excessively insensitive/speculative/potentially legally dubious etc then I think you need to report them. MNHQ can and do delete excessive speculation.

[MonstrousRatbag]

The threads don't stay within the law.

Lots of people think arrested=guilty, or charged=guilty and post accordingly.

Lots of people presume guilt or innocence for all kinds of fatuous reasons. And blithely say it's only Mumsnet, no one will see it, chill out. But Mumsnet comes out quite high in Google results generally, plus the law on not presuming the outcome or posting information that could prejudice a trial should be obeyed.

[ItsAllKickingOffPru]

They are grim and mawkish and potentially prejudicial to successful prosecutions.

It's not a case of Don't Like It, Hide The Thread. It's about the ghoulish tone and the place marking and the conjecture.

[Feckeggblue]

Out if interest monsterousratbag how can you say what stays within the law and doesn't? So as far as we know MN haven't been pulled up by the police/CPS for these threads and haven't pulled them up themselves despite their experience and legal resource available to them, yet you know these threads break the law it's not really something you can decide is it?

[Sparklingbrook]

It's the speculation/reading between the lines/assumptions that make me uncomfortable.

And the armchair sleuthing.

[MetallicBeige]

There's always people defending themselves. "Well MNHQ don't mind so we'll carry on thanks, it might be helpful blah blah". Yes love, the police are going to find a thread full of plonkers in MN sooo helpful to the case. The dream about the McCann case is a brilliant case in point, I remember thinking W.T.F? Some posters forget that there's an actual family going through hell.
I've mentioned it earlier but I remember that it took ages for them to delete the vile thread dissecting the Rebecca Watts case while the poor girl was still a missing person, people were wildly speculating on the details and alluding to who they thought it was (quite wrongly). When challenged they'd cross their arms and say "If you don't like it report it, we're just discussing it you know".
It goes so near the knuckle it's untrue. Within the law or not, MNHQ need to reign them in.

[Feckeggblue]

Well I suppose the issue is why do they need to be reigned in because some posters don't like it? The forums aren't here to be controlled by the morals of a few either way

[MetallicBeige]

For example: Would you like it if a family member went missing and idiots all over a so called supportive parenting site were pointing the finger and putting the blame onto a member of your family? Who was innocent by the way. Yes yes, it happens on a lot of sites, but this is meant to be a supportive space. It's just so, distasteful.
The way the threads go is never ever constructive, it's just folks salivating over details and clamouring to be first to break the news. Imagine if family and friends associated with the tragedy read it?! Ugh!
That's why it needs reigning in.

[Sparklingbrook]

I agree with you MB.

[AuntieStella]

Correct. It's not up to 'a few posters'.

It's controlled by MNHQ who can and do delete threads which are legally problematic, excessively speculative, or breach Talk Guidelines in any way.

So yes, it is reined in.

But no matter how often there are deletions, it doesn't seem to stop people doing it.

[Tiredemma]

Mnetters had Robert Murat guilty of MMcann abduction- with references made to him 'looking odd' (funny eye) therefore he must be guilty of something

[Sparklingbrook]

I wasn't on MN when MM went missing. I can only imagine what it was like.

[Feckeggblue]

I thought the point was so many weren't deleted