We've deleted the Madeleine McCann thread

As Hecate said, the Mccanns should be considered innocent until they are proven guilty in a court of law. Currently there is not even enough credible evidence to bring a court case against them. Therefore any discussion about the abdustion really is based on speculation alot of which (esp.on 'that' thread) could be libelous.

I was quite prepared to continue repeating 'they are innocent until proven guilty' until the thread finished. Real life intervened and I had to go out, then the thread was pulled. Good job really as I would have bored the pants off everyone and it was a shit 'discussion' anyway.

feline

It does explain at the start of this thread that they deleted because they had to delete half the thread and the rest did'nt make any sense. LOL

I thought it was a wise decision to delete the thread as it probably had become a full time job to delete all the libellous posts

15 days old....awwww

Onagar - go you think libel should be decriminalised then?

The right decision MNHQ. I dipped into it and was sickened actually. Thanks.

Don't delete THIS thread. It now contains for our amusement a list of those who think that threads they disagree with should be deleted.

I skimmed the other and saw much I disageed with and some that I didn't. I felt no urge to force them to agree with me. It must be the way I was brought up.

daftpunk - not necessarily no. Lots and lots of people read threads and then don't post for whatever reason. They may have nothing more to add, feel annoyed about what ha been said and don't feel they want to contribute, may fel unsure of posting their feelings, may hope that not posting will halt a thread, or may just b interested to see what is being said and by whom.

It is very much the norm on MN for there to be far more people who will read a thread rather than actually post.

I read it
Didnt like it Didnt want to be a part of it as simple as that

Glad its gone

No not voyeuristic DP. I read the thread thought this is vile and decided not to post mainly because I didn't want to bump the thread further. How does that make me a hypocrite?

I whizz through active convos. I look at a few threads that seem relevent/funny/interesting or just grab my notice.
I read them.
sometimes i comment . Sometimes I don't.

And that makes me voyeuristic how?
A hypocrit how?

Is there some rule whereby if you read a thread you have to comment even if you have nothing you wish to say.

what bollocks

DaftPunk back away from the thread....

Hulababy;..that makes them slightly voyeuristic dosn't it...and possibly hypocritical...

what rot, idrank. i remember that 'black sludge' comment. jade goody made it.

Oh okay I revel in these threads... clearly...

I am not getting into rediculous little arguments with people who quite frankly back up their own lies.

So have a good day...

daftpunk - why is it interesting that more people read the thread than posted on it? I would assume that that is actually the case with most threads on MN. There are, IME, far more people wh will lurk on a thread than actually post on it - epescially if it turns somewhat unpleasant. Definitely not unusual that.

Yes they did accuse her of giving herself cancer actually. And quite a few said they were glad she was dying.
Making a living from being in the public eye doesn't mean that it is right to make personal attacks.

One poster said that she brought it on herself because she "must have had black sludge" pouring from her for months whilst another said it was obvious that she would get cancer as she was probably promiscuous.

My point, is that personal attacks are not supposed to be allowed on this website but there are lots that are left on here even if posters complain.

There were (by all accounts although i have not read the thread) personal attacks on the Mcann thread and it was rightly deleted.
There were personal attacks on the Jade threads and they were not deleted.
I would like Mumsnet to explain why.

Very good decision to delete - there were some truly vile comments.

idranktheeasterspirits, i presume it's because some comment over the Jade situation is inevitable because she is a celebrity and made her living (and then her boys' living) from being in the press. i don't think anyone accused herself of giving herself cancer or said they were glad she was dying etc, it was more about the press coverage and her and her family's role in that. quite different i think, although some discussion at some point of whether or not the McCanns might retire from the public arena is inevitable. poor, poor people, to think that they might still be searching for her in twenty years' time, i hope it's not the case and they can get some peace.

x-posts - maybe that should tell you something.

you're treating it as entertainment - like a bit of fun gossip. that's why.

Partly because you so clearly revel in these threads perhaps?

Thing is though I did'nt speculate what I thought happened, your making out I did.

I did'nt actually say anything in the sort of a personal attack, theory and I also said there will always be speculation but there is no point in going on and dwelling on it because the 'facts' taht were being claimed were mainly biased against the McCanns infact I told the ones who went to far to wisen up and got shot down for that too.

Please do explain how that makes me vile, loathesome and nasty?