Right....
VCA - what a shame you didn't have the courtesy to ask Dita or I personally.
I emailed Dita to ask her if she would be willing to ask MNHQ to delete her thread, giving specific and valid reasons for that request, some of which have been identified on here. Others, which are more important to dog welfare even than the reasons given by posters here and which for that reason I'm not prepared to go into, I explained fully and politely to Dita and made it clear that there was no obligation upon her. Because there was quite a lot of this information it was easier by far to delete and start again than to report and have deleted several seperate posts. Deleting individual posts would have made the thread nonsensical in parts.
I assured Dita that if she was happy for me to do so I would ask MNHQ too, with a full explanation and that if she was happy for me to do so I would screenshot the original thread for reference and repost the relevant to puppy farming posts as best I could (although mindful of my limited and slow typing skills) rather than lose all her, and others', valid comments and or lose the important message and advice in the thread altogether by asking for deletion alone. I did this as posters had said that the advice on what to look out for was helpful and for some, insightful.
Dita responded by saying that she was very much in agreement with my reasoning and that she'd sent MNHQ what she described as a very lengthy pm explaining why she was asking them to delete the thread. I'm a rescuer who is involved in AR campaigns against puppy farming and so I do happen to know a bit about this subject.
MNHQ later emailed me to say that they'd deleted the thread. I replied with a thank you - CatherineMN came back to me to say "It's no problem - the thread was certainly an eye opener. So glad you were on hand to help and advise the OP. Mumsnet at is best :) ".
In keeping with my promise to Dita and MN I re-posted what others had said. Yes, I have edited potentially dangerous remarks. There are genuine reasons for this - Dita knows them, MNHQ knows them and approved the request, I am not going to state them publicly. I also edited out some of the less relevent comments (such as about coat type or a recommendation that Dita opted for a Poodle) including chunks of my own posts in order that the vital points weren't overlooked and also in the interests of some form of brevity, my slow typing, the boredom threshold of those who had read the original thread and the fact that I wanted to get my promise to Dita over and done with so I could medicate my epileptic dog on time.
It might reassure you to know that I had before I read this thread pm-ed a couple of MN regulars who I know to be genuine (ScuttleButter, a respected and knowledgable dog welfare and puppy farm campaiger is one of them) to explain my reasons and what I know. (Dooin, you were next on that list lovey but I've been sidetracked!). Without trying to speak for her, I think that ScuttleButter will confirm that my reasons are valid, genuine and made for legal reasons and without malice towards any MNer or any attempt to edit anything which I merely disagreed with and barring acting in the interests of dog welfare I have no "hidden agenda".
If you really want the edited bits on having a Poodle instead of a Doodle (interesting and valid, but I was aiming for brevity and relevance to puppy farmers and how to avoid them) or how Many Tears operates (MY post and important but not relevant to THIS topic), please pm me and I'll email them to you. Having sought politely and obtained from both Dita and MNHQ their permission to avoid mentions of material which could be damaging to canine welfare I will not however be sending you the details which I edited and for which I gave comprehensive and valid reasons for asking to be removed.