Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

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

103 replies

HoneyDragonMumshnet · 15/10/2014 18:47

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 Thanks

OP posts:
vezzie · 16/10/2014 11:42

"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"

I think the issue with mn on things like this is that we are expected to treat people as if we know them or are personally in their presence. This is entirely inappropriate. This is NOT a social situation (wrt Cameron - obv it is a social situation wrt how we relate to each other on here). This is a POLITICAL situation and mn HAS to be a place where we can be absolutely searing in analysis of how we have been manipulated, as an electorate - for political reasons - and as honest as we like about how that makes us feel - for reasons of authenticity and personal expression.

MN has made mistakes like this before in things like how we position our debate in webchats. I attribute this to the fact that MNHQ are in fact in social situations with these guests and have probably used smooth social skills to get close enough to invite them on, and then of course have physically hosted them and behaved as one does when one is offering tea and biscuits in one's own space. But demanding that we behave the same is de-fanging us as political entities. It is privileging (subconsciously of course) crony-ism over political process. Which is how MNHQ get things done (by being chummy and lovely to important people - but we don't have that privilege, we are mere voters)

This is absolutely not comparable to the McCann case and it is a shocking (yet predicatable) category error to confuse the two. The McCanns are a private family, unwillingly in the public eye through personal catastrophe. Cameron is a political operator who holds great power and influence over all of our lives and is looking for more of the same. Please.

This has really disgusted and annoyed me. I feel like we are being lectured by a head mistress about our behaviour in school uniform - without understanding that we are being forced to defend ourselves

MNHQ
JustineMumsnet · 16/10/2014 11:40

@ChippingInLatteLover

... and since then, I have in fact, said that would be 'great'.

Too much cross posting - time to make Brew Anyone?

We need real time chat Shock

Original poster
HoneyDragonMumshnet · 16/10/2014 11:39

I don't think anyone has NOT shown.

I'm sorry I'm on my phone at present and am useless on the keyboard.

OP posts:
MNHQ
JustineMumsnet · 16/10/2014 11:39

@olgaga

Justine, do you and your colleagues really think allegations that a couple murdered their own child are on a par with criticising Cameron's performance yesterday in the Commons?

If so I certainly disagree. Frankly there is no similarity between those two issues.

If that was the rationale behind the moderation of yesterday's thread then it was certainly flawed.

The experience of raising and sadly losing a disabled child does not give a Prime Minister immunity from criticism. It is the fact that he seems to think it does which made him the subject of yesterday's thread, and that is a legitimate cause for concern and discussion.

I think that there are comparisons to be drawn with allegations that a bereaved couple murdered their child and that a bereaved father cynically uses death of child to win favour.

In the sense that it adds insult to injury.

But no one is saying DC should be immune to criticism...

Original poster
HoneyDragonMumshnet · 16/10/2014 11:38

I don't think anyone has disrespected the office of pm.

I don't think everyone has shown they have sympathy for Cameron's loss.

I don't think saying DCs discussing Ivan can be open to interpretation so maybe discussion should be controlled is fair. Once it's out there, it can be discussed. It was done in a house of debate and many feel, whether cynically intended or as a result of emotion it was used to shut down the debate and stop difficult questions.

Why, as long as posters remain in the guidelines can they not discuss it.

It is heartbreaking to see people sharing their own personal stories and trials and seeing them effectively being deemed lesser. His voice stands, theirs is shut down. I'm sure that's not what you mean to achieve, but that's how it can come across.

Very soon, we're going to get all manner of politicitrolls joining up to stir the pot. Just like last time. If your not clear and defined, it's going to a big, manipulative mess....and no ones going to look good.

OP posts:
OneSkinnyChip · 16/10/2014 11:33

I'm pleased to see that this is under discussion because I felt genuinely shocked that DC seemed to be getting some kind of special protection status. We've all suffered tragedies but they shouldn't be used to shut discussion down, ever. All that does is perpetuate more tragedies.

In DC's case his disgusting Party's actions are having massive repercussions for many parents of disabled children, people much less well-equipped to buy in specialist care.

olgaga · 16/10/2014 11:32

OK a bit of x-posting there. It seems we are getting somewhere but it's a shame it's been like drawing teeth.

olgaga · 16/10/2014 11:28

Justine, do you and your colleagues really think allegations that a couple murdered their own child are on a par with criticising Cameron's performance yesterday in the Commons?

If so I certainly disagree. Frankly there is no similarity between those two issues.

If that was the rationale behind the moderation of yesterday's thread then it was certainly flawed.

The experience of raising and sadly losing a disabled child does not give a Prime Minister immunity from criticism. It is the fact that he seems to think it does which made him the subject of yesterday's thread, and that is a legitimate cause for concern and discussion.

ChippingInLatteLover · 16/10/2014 11:28

... and since then, I have in fact, said that would be 'great'.

Too much cross posting - time to make Brew Anyone?

ChippingInLatteLover · 16/10/2014 11:25

Justine yes, it does, but given you posted that after my comment it didn't at the time.

ChippingInLatteLover · 16/10/2014 11:23

However, it does have to be said, that whilst Olegaga said it well - it wasn't anything that wasn't expressed on the other thread at the beginning of the month and we were 'told off' and told to cease and desist.

MNHQ
JustineMumsnet · 16/10/2014 11:21

@ChippingInLatteLover

No Justine it's still as clear as mud tbh. You admit we have a point (via Treats post) but then don't say 'oops our moderation was wrong and we wont do that again'.

Well, I said:
"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."

And this:

"But, again, I agree I think we did over do it and will be more circumspect on the censorship going forward."

I think that pretty much covers it no?

ChippingInLatteLover · 16/10/2014 11:20

But, again, I agree I think we did over do it and will be more circumspect on the censorship going forward

Great.

ChippingInLatteLover · 16/10/2014 11:19

Justine - some people have indeed belittled his own experience of caring before

Are you talking about caring about or caring for his son.

I would like to see even one post from a regular (by regular I mean - normal thinking person & not someone signing up to wind people up, not someone who posts often) saying that DC did not care about his son.

However, one thing is for sure, his experience of caring FOR his child is nothing like the experience of the vast majority of people caring for disabled children, nothing.

thereturnofshoesy · 16/10/2014 11:06

JustineMumsnet (MNHQ) Thu 16-Oct-14 10:33:44
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.

you are misunderstanding me. you are using them as a comparison. yes they have both lost a child. but other than that there is no comparison.
so in that case only posts that say something about his loss and greif should be deleted. not posts questioning how he uses his tragedy to shut down debate.

MNHQ
JustineMumsnet · 16/10/2014 11:06

@ChippingInLatteLover

Justine

You seem to be missing the point we are making, but I don't know how to better explain it?!

The Mcanns are not talking about M to do anything other than find M (and raise awareness of missing children). Their 'media time' is about finding their daughter.

DC is talking about Ivan in the political arena and making comments about him/his care/his experience in the NHS - he is doing this to answer questions, shut down debate and influence votes.

There simply isn't any comparison. The only thing they have in common is distress over their child.

You said...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

No one but no one is saying that DC wasn't distressed over either Ivan's condition or his death. No one is saying it's not a tragedy to lose a child.

What we are saying is that if HE speaks about his son in relationship to saving the NHS or anything else then we should have the right to discuss what he has said and our feelings about him discussing Ivan at these times.

Olagaga explained it really well.

As said to HoneyDragon - DC's motives in talking about Ivan are open to interpretation and some people have indeed belittled his own experience of caring before.

But yes, broadly, as said, I think Olagaga made good points and I do agree that it isn't exactly the same thing as McCanns - I just used it as an explanation for why we deleted quite as much as we did last night.

But, again, I agree I think we did over do it and will be more circumspect on the censorship going forward.

nauticant · 16/10/2014 11:05

The thing that struck me about the other thread was the blind assertion that if someone says Cameron has been cynical in this regard, then they must also be saying that he's a liar and he doesn't care about his child (who died).

I can't think of a better example of the effectiveness of referring to Ivan in closing down debate.

ChippingInLatteLover · 16/10/2014 11:03

No Justine it's still as clear as mud tbh. You admit we have a point (via Treats post) but then don't say 'oops our moderation was wrong and we wont do that again'.

ChippingInLatteLover · 16/10/2014 11:01

Justine what treats said is what was said on the other thread!!!!

MNHQ
JustineMumsnet · 16/10/2014 11:00

@HoneyDragonMumshnet

So we can say that we dislike his mentioning his role as a carer to a child with disabilities to shut down an arguement.

But we can say he used his position as grieving father to do so?

Because he did use his position as the carer of a child with disabilities to gain votes from others in the same position.

And I ask whether that's appropriate to discuss on general threads or indeed a web chat with any politician discussing it.

Well you can't know that he used his position as a carer of a child with disabilities to gain votes from others in the same position really can you? You could equally argue that he talked about his position as carer in order to show how strongly it matters to him personally...

But it's hopeless for us to give you a set of words that are or aren't acceptable - as said it's all about meaning, context, level of aggression etc. Same with a webchat - we ask users to be civil, to treat guest as they might if they were talking face to face - so often it's about how you ask the question, not what the question is - does it seem downright mean/rude or not.

Hope that makes some sense?

ChippingInLatteLover · 16/10/2014 10:58

Justine

You seem to be missing the point we are making, but I don't know how to better explain it?!

The Mcanns are not talking about M to do anything other than find M (and raise awareness of missing children). Their 'media time' is about finding their daughter.

DC is talking about Ivan in the political arena and making comments about him/his care/his experience in the NHS - he is doing this to answer questions, shut down debate and influence votes.

There simply isn't any comparison. The only thing they have in common is distress over their child.

You said...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

No one but no one is saying that DC wasn't distressed over either Ivan's condition or his death. No one is saying it's not a tragedy to lose a child.

What we are saying is that if HE speaks about his son in relationship to saving the NHS or anything else then we should have the right to discuss what he has said and our feelings about him discussing Ivan at these times.

Olagaga explained it really well.

Original poster
HoneyDragonMumshnet · 16/10/2014 10:52

*can't say he used his grieving role

Sorry about the typo

OP posts:
Original poster
HoneyDragonMumshnet · 16/10/2014 10:51

(Oh and thank you got coming back so soon Grin)

OP posts:
Original poster
HoneyDragonMumshnet · 16/10/2014 10:50

So we can say that we dislike his mentioning his role as a carer to a child with disabilities to shut down an arguement.

But we can say he used his position as grieving father to do so?

Because he did use his position as the carer of a child with disabilities to gain votes from others in the same position.

And I ask whether that's appropriate to discuss on general threads or indeed a web chat with any politician discussing it.

OP posts:
MNHQ
JustineMumsnet · 16/10/2014 10:47

@Treats

You deleted me from the thread started after Cameron's conference speech. I said I thought it was manipulative to reference his dead son in defence of his party's record on the NHS. I stand by that and would say it again after his performance in the Commons yesterday.

I didn't attack him personally or call him any names.

I didn't say that he hadn't suffered and grieved as a parent - both to a disabled child and as someone who had lost a child.

I didn't say he was a liar.

I think my criticism was valid comment of him AS A POLITICIAN. He's the one who has brought his children into a political debate and implicitly asked us to judge him on that basis. And we are judging. Which we have every right to do.

Had he not mentioned his son, I think you would be quite right to delete anyone who used his actions or experience as a parent to judge him as a politician.

I think you do need to get your policy very clear on this one. But with full reference to the fact that it was DC himself who brought his son into the political fray and not any of the posters here.

Yes I think you make fair point.