MNHQ can you please come and categorically state what opinions CAN be expressed toward DC?

[HoneyDragonMumshnet]

Because at the moment your vague explanations referencing campaigns and what the site is about for deletions aren't helping.

The way I see it, your all embracing keeness to be supportive to ONE high profile parent who has experienced racing a child with a disability and suffered the loss of a child, is inadvertently hurting many many more parents who are suffering now. Suffering because of his policies.

I feel you ought to support them too.

Non of this is going away. It's going to get more prolific through party broadcasting and manifestos.

Parents NEED the right to express their hurt, loss and bitterness too, and they don't have a stage do it on, a nice suit to say it in and a good wage to think about it with.

So please, come up with something uniform so you don't have to make slapdash confusing deletions. Help YOUR parents on here to able to talk freely about this issues.

TIA

YY HoneyDragon. Nothing to add really, you expressed it very well.

It's a sad day when you can't express a genuine opinion on our political leaders without being deleted, election or no election. (in fact especially important to be able to discuss/ debate at election time)

I think it's quite clear people can say what they like about policies, the conservatives and David Cameron personally, but if you're talking about the thread I'm thinking of, MNHQ said they draw a line at people accusing him of using his dead son for political gain and tbh I 100% agree with MNHQ on that.

Some people are making quite vile comments as it's just not on to accuse a bereaved parent of milking their loss or to casually say looking after, and then losing, a disabled child is so much easier for him as he is rich. How cruel and dismissive of that suffering. People need to have a bit of respect towards a dead child and grieving family.

No one is stopping you from talking politics or about any issues involved in raising disabled children.

Thanks MNHQ for taking a stand on these comments. I respect that you did that!

Hi - yes it is nuanced to be honest - we find it's not easy to tread it ourselves. But essentially there is a level of nasty abuse of politicians (and slebs for that matter) that we think we shouldn't allow. I'm talking about the beyond the pale stuff, that makes you cringe. Much as we wouldn't allow personal attacks on Mumsnetters (in fact we'd probably allow much less about Mumsnetters).

Of course people have every right to be critical of politicians and the issues are crucially important, so clearly feelings feelings will run high. But out and out abuse and nastiness is, we think, not on as well as potentially damaging to MN's reputations and hence future campaigns.

But, of course, it's open to discussion - sorry I have to rush out now but please do add your thoughts on here about how you think we should moderate things like this and we'll pick it up in the morning.

I'm sure I've reported pretty vicious attacks on well known people before and got the response that people in the public eye are used to it and don't need protection from MN or some such.

I haven't seen deleted posts but anything disablist obvs bad, but suggesting DC uses his son for political gain only mildly unpleasant and prob true. Is this what deletions were for?

Thank you Justine.

I thought it may be better to try and think about it here, as it's going to be long upsetting seven months if we don't get something helpful sorted.

These issues are more than just manifesto makers on here. It makes me sad that some people's threads are written from the heart, hearts that have been torn apart in ways that we can't comprehend.

They have every right to be angry, and it's a shame entire posts are deleted because a small part of it may or may not be a personal attack on DC. Especially and some if these posters have been unswerving in their time and support for many many others on Mumsnet, who find their way here because they are lost and have no where else to go.

i have found it very confusing.
all of a sudden comments about the prime minister are censored.
he seems to be more protected that a member of mn.
very strange.
i really don't get why someone who has chosen to take himself into the most public of offices, who has mentioned his son on numerous occasions. is suddenly a protected species.
a quote from a mn post/
"Just a word about the wider context and our thinking on this as well.

We try as an organisation to campaign on serious issues like miscarriage, SN and sexual violence. In order to be in any way effective on things like that, we need to engage with politicians, great and small. That's just not going to happen if MN is perceived as a place where posters can make enormously insulting statements about named public figures at will.

We also regularly get major politicians on for webchats - another thing that could just stop happening if we don't draw some lines about what we think isn't OK."

I know I for one would rather be able to talk freely about politicians, than worry about them not caring about a mn campaign(I bet most of them don't any way)
I think this site should be about the members who give daily. not over paid politicians

Also those that want politicians to come for a web chat, would not want a sanitised conversation.

I am happy to respect the position of Prime Minister. But that does not mean I necessarily respect the man.

i don't see the point in them
look at biscuit gate....

I've thoroughly repressed that, thanks

I would like to know how DC supported the "this is my child " campaign

Thanks for raising this HD

Surely it is possible for Mumsnet to campaign on serious issues such as miscarriage and gender stereotyping in toys and everything else without having to censor the very valid and legitimate concerns of individual Mumsnetters wrt to the policitians who serve us?

Surely?

If not then we are at 1984 just 30 years late.

Have followed the thread in question, to HoneyD for raising this.

I think its very important, especially given that as election time approaches, I am sure that the party leaders will want to come here for a chat to campaign for their parties, that 'we' know what we can and cannot say about politicians and how they choose to reference various matters.

Others can say all this much more eloquently than I can.

I am interested to know just where the barriers of democracy and free speech are.

on the thread in question, we now have a poster saying that paying disabled people less than the MW is ok,
I hop MN HQ delete that post.
cos surely that breaks the TKL....

Yes, horrible personal attacks on politicians are beyond the pale. But I don't see why people are banned from saying that Cameron uses his personal family experiences with his son for political purposes... Because quite obviously he does! Ed Miliband made a perfectly reasonable point and Cameron shut him down by quoting his own family experience.

I don't see what's wrong with pointing this out. It's very different from saying 'well Cameron clearly didn't care about his disabled son', which would certainly be a delete-worthy comment if anyone had actually made it. Which they didn't.

Yy Mrs DeVere, that is exactly it. Obviously personal attacks on anyone are not good and not allowed. What is completely valid is to say that just because someone has lived some part of a life, they can speak for others in a similar position. They certainly should not be using their personal experience to shut down discussion / debate of a topic.
I've had breast cancer but I would never presume to speak for others who've had it.

I also posted on the other thread.

Cameron certainly did use his experience as the parent of a disabled child to great effect prior to the 2010 election.

He spoke very movingly and in great detail about his experience of using the NHS with his son Ivan. This improved his Party's standing in the polls in relation to whether a Tory Govt would protect the NHS.

It also meant that voters believed Cameron when he said there would be "No top-down reorganisation of the NHS".

Following the election they immediately embarked on a top-down reorganisation of the NHS which has been widely criticised - not least by senior Tories only last weekend.

It is clearly the case that Cameron has used his personal experience to great effect.

I do not believe it was an appropriate way to answer the legitimate questions put to him yesterday.

Nor do I believe it is appropriate to raise it when there is criticism of Tory policy on the NHS, or Welfare Reform.

That was the point that was being made by the OP on the other thread. It was appropriate for MNHQ to express the opinion that the point was clumsily made.

But I do not feel it is appropriate for MNHQ to censor legitimate concern about the conduct of public figures.

Its up to MN owners where they want to take Mn as a brand, and if courting politicians is a part of that then so be it. but I am disappointed at this belated moral stance after so many years of the board being self policing and hq being v unwilling to delete unpleasant posts where a debate was seen as educational

I came here to say the same as olgaga.

Like many a mumsnetter, I recall the election campaigning. I recall that many people, who perhaps wouldn't have done otherwise, stated their intention to vote Conservative because they trusted Cameron to take care of the NHS. That they believed he empathised with carers for disabled children.

I won't go searching for quotes, because that would be unkind to the users, but it happened. Five years on (or near enough), as the next election approaches, I think people are entitled to state their political opinions have veered in the opposite direction, and why. Otherwise, it feels rather like we can say only Good Things About Our Leader.

@ItsAllGoingToBeFine

I'm sure I've reported pretty vicious attacks on well known people before and got the response that people in the public eye are used to it and don't need protection from MN or some such.

I haven't seen deleted posts but anything disablist obvs bad, but suggesting DC uses his son for political gain only mildly unpleasant and prob true. Is this what deletions were for?

We probably are less likely to delete attacks on public figures than private individuals/mumsnet users. What we're really talking about here is where we draw the line - it's one thing saying someone's an arse, another saying they are a evil, blood-sucking c*, for example. Or that they cynically use the death of their child for personal gain.

This is really the grey area we are trying to negotiate and often it comes down to context and level of aggression.

@thereturnofshoesy

i have found it very confusing. all of a sudden comments about the prime minister are censored. he seems to be more protected that a member of mn. very strange. i really don't get why someone who has chosen to take himself into the most public of offices, who has mentioned his son on numerous occasions. is suddenly a protected species. a quote from a mn post/ "Just a word about the wider context and our thinking on this as well.

We try as an organisation to campaign on serious issues like miscarriage, SN and sexual violence. In order to be in any way effective on things like that, we need to engage with politicians, great and small. That's just not going to happen if MN is perceived as a place where posters can make enormously insulting statements about named public figures at will.

We also regularly get major politicians on for webchats - another thing that could just stop happening if we don't draw some lines about what we think isn't OK."

I know I for one would rather be able to talk freely about politicians, than worry about them not caring about a mn campaign(I bet most of them don't any way)
I think this site should be about the members who give daily. not over paid politicians

I think it's just about affording our elected politicians (of all sides) a basic - and I do mean fairly basic! - level of respect tbh

@olgaga

I also posted on the other thread.

Cameron certainly did use his experience as the parent of a disabled child to great effect prior to the 2010 election.

He spoke very movingly and in great detail about his experience of using the NHS with his son Ivan. This improved his Party's standing in the polls in relation to whether a Tory Govt would protect the NHS.

It also meant that voters believed Cameron when he said there would be "No top-down reorganisation of the NHS".

Following the election they immediately embarked on a top-down reorganisation of the NHS which has been widely criticised - not least by senior Tories only last weekend.

It is clearly the case that Cameron has used his personal experience to great effect.

I do not believe it was an appropriate way to answer the legitimate questions put to him yesterday.

Nor do I believe it is appropriate to raise it when there is criticism of Tory policy on the NHS, or Welfare Reform.

That was the point that was being made by the OP on the other thread. It was appropriate for MNHQ to express the opinion that the point was clumsily made.

But I do not feel it is appropriate for MNHQ to censor legitimate concern about the conduct of public figures.

Yes, I think you've made a good argument here, Olgaga. I think perhaps we slightly over did it on the other thread with the deletions - may have been better to post.

By way of explanation in terms of our moderation, this situation felt a bit like the Kate and Gerry McCann threads, where we've always taken the view that we won't allow the conspiracy theorist arguments that they killed Madeleine because it's simply such a nasty allegation re a family who've suffered the loss of a child.

i do wish you wouldn't compare the MM threads to.
the mcanns are only known to us because of a tragic occurrence. they did not chose to become famous, they are not politicians. so there is no comparison;.

@thereturnofshoesy

i do wish you wouldn't compare the MM threads to. the mcanns are only known to us because of a tragic occurrence. they did not chose to become famous, they are not politicians. so there is no comparison;.

I disagree tbh. It doesn't really matter if you chose to become famous or not - it's a tragedy to lose a child either way.