Mumsnet - please can you sort out all the Jade posts?

"That member was, I assume, trying to make a point about hypocrisy/hysteria etc. Anyway we agree it's all in pretty poor taste given the timing and last night we had a word with the poster off-line and asked her to stop"

were they a regular member? Had they been contributing posts to the other threads or did they just jump in and 'make a point'?

Hopefully when you had a word off-line you explained to them that they could contribute to one of the threads set up to discuss the media surrounding the whole thing, rather than make an arse of themselves by bumping a whole load of stuff?

When you say you 'assume' didn't you ask? Didn't they bother to give a reason for their behaviour? Do they still post here?

2shoes, i said 'many people' quite distinctly. i know you were identifying with them, that's why i didn't casually write 'anybody'.

You're right, previous cross words don't detract from the grief when someone has lost a loved one - in fact they can make the loss worse, but is Jade Goody a loved one to anyone on this board? Certainly not to anyone who previously posted nasty things about her in BB.

Selective reposting of such threads does sound a bit silly though. I get the point the poster in question was trying to make but it was probably best not made.

Of course it is done out of malice.
Pointing out that someone who now may be sad about Jade's death once may have said something derogatory about her serves no purpose.
Surely when someone loses a loved one, there have been crossed words and negative thoughts in the past. It doesn't detract from the grief.

I didn't see the threads last night, I was off board. Sounds like it all got a bit mad.

I do feel immense sympathy for Jade Goody and for her family, I don't think anyone doesn't. You can feel sympathy for the person and question the wisdom/appropriateness of the mass hysteria their death provokes. I felt the same about Diana.

The problem is that we are only going to be prompted to have the discussion about PR and the power of the media when something is as in our faces as Jade has been for the last few weeks, and then when you attempt to have the discussion you are branded unfeeling etc.

Georgiemama. I think that is a valid discussion too, as I for one have been very shocked at how far the well run pr machine of max clifford can take the nation. I think it is very scary. But I also think that is a different thread alltogether. The power of media and well run pr machines that even seem to "get to" those in public office, is worthy of discussion.

I think yesterday, at least for me, I did not recognise that so many of them were old threads, rather than new. But there were new ones too.

So basically we are not allowed to discuss the media phenomena of mass "grief" for a celebrity figure or discuss what we think that says about society etc? Is that really how we want to play this?

No I dont think it was malicious either. It was quite hysterical the last few days, I reckon it was a reaction to that hysteria.

Justine, it has been done before, with mccann, babyp, as justa says, could be a good policy when matters get out of hand.

I dont think the idea is to amalgamate all the treads about JG the last few years, but let there be just ONE discussion thread going forward.

how badly did the birthday thread kick off then? I reported it, as I thought the OP was in v bad taste (albiet the rest of the posts were not bad) and got an email to say it wasn't being deleted (fair enough) but it seems to be gone.

I think the issue with "one thread" is that people tend to start off with the intention of one thread (sometimes two start because people haven't checked the threads / start at the same time etc) but imo it always seems to be those anti the thread topic that start new threads.

For eg, there was two "Jade has died" threads, the first one only had a couple of posts and most people were posting on the second. But then the people who dont think posters should be allowed to say the feel sad go and start another thread, taking the piss, which kicks off and is deleted, and then this leads to more threads, and more threads...

"doesn't mean i don't think it's tragic that he's lost his wee boy. or that jade lost her life. i don't think many people were identifying with the camerons in quite the same way as the jade stuff, though."

well I did.

"but there are peopple who genuinely do not understand this outpouring of public grief for a total stranger. And because they do not get it they are branded discompassionate/unfeeling."

you are right, there are people who genuinely don't understand, Problem is that these people, rather than saying 'I don't get it' then sometimes go on to either have a go at people who are expressing sympathies and sadness or they end up saying some quite foul things about Jade Goody. Classic example was the thread where a couple of posters were speculating that she wasn't as ill as she said she was - the one where comments were made about her make-up ec.

those posts were so uncalled for and they were not the voice of people who don't understand other people's sympathies towards Jade Goody's family but were the voices of people who were being very mean about the whole situation. IMO.

Nothing wrong in saying that you don't like someone. But it doesn't mean that you can't sympathise with them, empathise with their situation and have compassion for them.

And since when were we writing/posting on MN for the benefit of others? If it had been a thread to be sent to them, like a book of condolences, then that would be different.

It's very dubious when you start to want to prevent people from writing their true thoughts on a public forum.

Totally agree. I hate this "Saintification". I hated it at the time of Princess Di, and I hate it now. People have flaws, and if they are in the public eye, then everyone knows about them. Some people clearly feel the need to feel upset and say "oh how terrible". Others do not. I don't see why one view is more valid than the other. Obviously if people are going to be vile and start off about dancing on graves etc, then that's one thing, but otherwise I don't really see why dissenting views are not allowed. Free speech and all that.

WHY? where was this idea written down? who put dittany in charge?

I posted on one of the Cameron threads, to say how sorry I was to hear about his son's death. I prefaced it by saying that I wasn't one of DC's fans, or something like that - and was (one of several) roundly criticised for it.

Seems like we're not actually allowed to express any empathy/sympathy/compassion yet also not like a particular person!

on one of them, yes, i don't remember it being on a mass condolence thread though, if there was such a thing. he is not someone who i respect awfully.

oh, i mentioned it at the time, about cameron being ghastly. i distinctly remember. he is ghastly, and he joined the tories at a time when they were particularly heinous.

doesn't mean i don't think it's tragic that he's lost his wee boy. or that jade lost her life. i don't think many people were identifying with the camerons in quite the same way as the jade stuff, though.

I was going to say something really below the belt here about supply, demands, the capitalist ethos, profit and loss. But I restrain myself, and go to bed.

I bid thee goodnight.