This thread has been deleted at the OP's request. (We don't normally delete whole threads but we will do so when it is to protect a poster's privacy.)

[WTFisABooyhoo]

why does MNHQ do this when it's nothing to do with protecting a poster's privacy and all to do with them not liking the response their thread got?

[AugustaProdworthy]

Was it the nursery one?

[ImTooHecsyForYourParty]

Possibly because the OP messages them and claims that they are identifiable and they would rather err on the side of caution?

[ImTooHecsyForYourParty]

and what nursery one?

[JaquelineHyde]

I have known MN to refuse to delete whole threads when requested for this very reason. So I would always assume that if the thread is deleted then the posters privacy really is an issue.

Why does it matter to you so much?

[AuntieStella]

The nursery one was deleted because OP started two threads asking the same question and the second one was zapped.

[WTFisABooyhoo]

i've reported my own OP to ask MNHQ to explain it to me.

no not the nursery one. i didn't know it had been deleted. sparked by another today but i've seen it a few times recently and it never seems to be consistent.

[WTFisABooyhoo]

yes beertricks. that one.

[CajaDeLaMemoria]

I'm baffled by what thread I was looking at when I got that message. It's bothering me hugely that I can't remember.

[Fallenangle]

I think this was about showing affection in front of DCs with a Dom/Sub theme. I only read page 1 and 2 of 5 but perhaps the OP was worried she could be identified. She was getting a hard time though.

[kneedeepindaisies]

If we're thinking of the same thread, then there are more identifiable things in the OP's previous posts then on today's one.

[PlentyOfPubeGardens]

Was this the 'expressive' OP in relationships? I didn't see anything that could have identified her in her posts or the responses. Thread wasn't going her way though, quite rightly IMO.

[lougle]

I've seen tens of a few threads where the poster has not got answers they like and suddenly the thread is deleted to 'protect privacy'. Protect ego, more like, but there you go.

[WTFisABooyhoo]

yes the 'expressive parents' one.

[kneedeepindaisies]

It does feel a bit like the poster wasn't getting the response she wanted. However it could be that the information in that thread plus information in previous threads made her identifiable.

[CajaDeLaMemoria]

Oh of course. I was reading it in the supermarket...leather, right?

Hmm.

[BitBewildered]

That was a bloody worrying thread.

[WTFisABooyhoo]

yes caja.

but not just that thread. i've seen it quite a few times recently. poster's privacy wasn't the reason i was expecting that particular thread to be zapped for. i'm guessing MNHQ aren't tied to any code of having to report what that OP admitted to, to any authorities?

[YoniMeKateMumsnet]

Hi everyone,

We deleted that thread due to a combination of too much personal info from the OP, and we could see the thread descending into a bun fight - and overall we thought the nature of the thread wasn't really in the spirit of the site.

We should have been clearer with our deletion message though - and we can see why it would cause confusion - sorry.

[Fallenangle]

People were talking about SS on the grounds that her hubby wears leather wrist bands at home as a sign of submission. Maybe Towers thought that threats of SS was a bit over the top given that she never said they had the whips out in front of the kids or anything like that.

[Fallenangle]

Cross post with KateMumsnet.

[Fallenangle]

Now a question for KateMumsnet. What about it wasn't in the spirit of the site? it was about parenting and you don't seem to think it was a bridge dweller?

[ExitPursuedByABear]

I miss all the fun

[Fallenangle]

Get your DP some leather wristbands Exit and start your own.