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

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.

Whilst I absolutely agree that people should not be allowed to say they think the McCanns killed their own daughter, that is only a small part of the reason threads about them are jumped on though, isn't it?

Let's not be disingenuous here. The hovering litigators make you quicker onto the button as well.

I have had my eyes opened this last few weeks tbh. I am on a DC thread from a couple of weeks ago, where I defend his right to speak about his dead child any damn time and place he chooses. (And I say that as a card carrying Labour Party member) I suppose I have slightly raised my eyebrows in the past at how often he seems to do it, when compared with Gordon Brown. In fact, during the last election, there were several threads where less politically up-to-scratch MNers had to be told that GB had also lost a child. That's how often he brought his loss up.

All that said, my Pollyanna specs re DC speaking about his son have been trashed this week. Because this week's mention was not a man speaking from the heart about his child and his personal experiences. It was a cold blooded and calculated move (which worked) to shut any dissenting voices up.

And MNers need to be given a voice to say they are not going to let that happen.

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 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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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....

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.

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.

Thanks for raising this HD

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

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'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?