Hello all, So am back in Blighty and have caught up on everything posted and all the ongoing correspondence with the DM that's gone on while I've been away. (Sorry very poor communications on hols so haven't really been in the loop but Carrie and team have filled me in now.) Thanks all for the input as ever.
There are a few things you've raised that we need to address and clarify. So, as ever, apologies in advance for the long post.
The first I think is MNHQ's attitude towards this column and why we didn't try and put a stop to it earlier, i.e. the moment we found out about it. (Recap for those who may have missed: we didn't know in advance that it was going to happen, the first we knew about it was when we saw the first column being discussed on MN and initially we didn't think we had any legal grounds to contest the DM's use of MN quotes. We subsequently established some time after column 2 that the DM is, in fact, most likely infringing MN copyright).
As I said early on, a weekly column in the DM is not something we'd have sought. We share many Mumsnetters' misgivings about the views and general tone of the paper - particularly it's attitudes towards working women, immigrants etc. And as I've also said we've as yet detected no noticeable increase in visitors on Thursdays when the column is published (or on any other days for that matter). Nor is it a column that fills us with pride because it adequately represents the joy and wonder that is Mumsnet. So why - as some have understandably wondered - are we not banging our fists about stopping the darned thing and have we not fired off a barrage of legal threats? Why instead do we at HQ seem a bit ambivalent about whether the column exists or not?
The main answer is this. Like it or not, the Daily Mail is a very influential beast, probably one of the most politically influential institutions in the UK. So, irrespective of the content of these columns, the very fact that the Daily Mail have decided that Mumsnet is prominent and interesting enough to base a weekly column around increases our clout. Clout when it comes to asking government ministers to consider things like our miscarriage campaign, clout when we try to persuade Gok Wan's PR that he ought to pay us a visit, or when the Tories are thinking about environment policy or what they're going to do to increase breastfeeding rates.
We also have a distinct reluctance to "go legal" with anyone after our experience of GF going legal with us - the legal system and lawyers (particularly opposing lawyers) have a way of eating up all your resources, not to mention your will to live. And call us lily-livered if you like, we'd rather not be at the top the DM's hit list if there's a way of avoiding it.
Plus, from the correspondence Carrie's had with the mail in the last couple of weeks, it's clear that they would are prepared to take steps to minimise the privacy risks.
That said, we accept many of the reservations argued well here and in previous threads about the imperfect nature of the association.
In short, those of you who've accused us of residing on the fence are probably right - we are a bit and tbh it's not very comfortable! So where next?
We think perhaps it would be best both to help us get off the fence and, if it comes to it, to lay the column to rest, to put the matter to the vote. We recognise that it's not a perfect solution but there have been a number of objections raised about this and we'd like to see exactly what it is that folks are objecting to - MN in the Daily Mail per se. MN in the Daily Mail without MN control over content. MN in the Daily Mail in its current guise/format - for example would it be OK if it were it a funny weekly column written by someone like MorningPaper (they'd never have she's far too rude of course)? Or perhaps you don't object at all (and you have an aversion to posting on this thread ).
Hopefully they'll be a clear conclusion and we promise to abide by it and to do our darnedest to put it into action as quickly as possible.
We're sorry this has dragged on a bit - it is a bit tricky to conduct this type of negotiation in public, particularly when there's a whiff of the legals about - and as we all know (if we didn't already) MN is a very public board, open for all to see and easily searchable etc. At some points we do sometimes have to just hope that you trust that we are not the bad guys who are trying to manipulate, exploit and mislead you all for our own ends (many thanks to those who have said as much). If you think that we are then there's nowt much we can say I suspect to ever sway you otherwise - but you're welcome on MN all the same because it's not really about us, after all.
It also doesn't help that it all kicked off in holiday season which is how it always is (GF the same) - sod's law and all that. Anyway humble apologies for not being a bit more accessible/on the ball in the last few weeks. We are almost all back at full strength now and generally at your disposal .
So here's our very quick poll - please fill it in (just the once please). It won't gain you entry in any competitions to win a family holiday outside of school holidays but it will most certainly influence what we do next.
It would interesting to see if there is any statistical correlation between the percentage of active posters who are concerned about this, in relation to the percentage of people in the general population who also get exercised about issues...
Ok Aitch, I accept you weren't referring directly to me - but I still think it isn't necessary for people to go back to names which can now be raided by the Daily Mail. Their comments should be able to be read as stand alone opinions.
webdude, I think you will find that last night Justine laid out her reasons for ambivilance. Now, I might not agree with her reasoning, and have stated why, but I think we are a bit beyond just getting a yeah or nay re the column, for all the reasons Justine cited yesterday.
More to the point to get people to understand the issues involved.
stillfrazzled OK (re post around 12:45) will see about doing a post elsewhere and pointing out the Justine seemed to add anything but a 'firm no' as a 'yes'.
Of course, someone else who is strongly against a weekly column in the DM might want to muster support from their friends on MN (I've only looked in for 5 minutes by comparison with people who've been on for years) (oh, and normally stick around geeky topics, too!)
Looks like this thread is reaching its limit soon. I blame the window cleaner!
"from the correspondence Carrie's had with the mail in the last couple of weeks, it's clear that they would are prepared to take steps to minimise the privacy risks."
So does that mean that the DailyMail won't consider pulling the column, even if we vote for them to be denied the content? If they are discussing how they could "minimise privacy risks" then to me that means they are aren't discussing pulling completely out of republishing material from Mumsnet.
winehouse, i don't know how to break it to you but i really, really wasn't talking about you or to you. i thought you were a newbie.
i DO think that if people are making snidey comments to MP it's utterly shitty of them to do so using a name that she doesn't recognise. you surely wouldn't argue with that?
as regards the 'unutterable bitches', please put it to one side. i was not referring to you, unless you are one of the two people who hysterically and unforgiveably attacked revjustabout, going so far as to phone her bishop to establish her credentials.
and for the record i'd lay a pound to a penny that i said that they 'behaved like unutterable bitches' rather than they 'are unutterable bitches'.
i know the two people who did it, i would not make the casual mistake of branding them bitches as i don't think they both are. but i think they did, in those few highly-charged days, behave like bitches. i presume (rightly or wrongly, dunno) that they have since contacted RevJustabout to apologise for their behaviour, because i can't think that they would be able to live with themselves otherwise.
anyone who has read anything i have to say about Moldies will know that you've got the wrong end of the stick there, Winehouse. i don't have a problem with it, and know that its members are by and large just normal decent right-thinking women (most of whom post here as well, quite rightly).
Can the DM actually be stopped from using the content? Google already republishes the content (via Search Results) and it could be argued that they make profit from doing that (ads on the Google search listings).
Tesco seem to have got into bed with the DM... so if mumsnetters boycotted Tesco, would Tesco pull out of their promotion with the DailyMail? Would Tesco care? Probably not... but that may give the other news media organisations something to write about - Mumsnetters Boycott Tesco over Daily Mail Column.
Happy to start a thread for the week's chosen journalist to cannibalize! In a VERY previous life I had to watch my words at dinner parties in case I ended up as the following weekend's column fodder, so I'm used to it. What's it to be - baby names, religion in schools, early weaning or helicopter parenting?
I'm an oldie too (as mentioned earlier). I don't feel any need to post under previous names - as this is my identity now.
If this goes ahead though, I really will think whether MN is something I want to be part of - I detest the DM so much that I suspect that being part of something that had allied itself with the DM would be one step too far.