Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk

Back to thread
Original poster

Agenda, much?

40 replies

Malificence · 03/03/2012 17:47

I don't usually wander onto the MN facebook page but I was pretty horrified to find what looks very much like an MRA agenda posted on there.
I'm trying very hard to see what relevance the photo used for their site has regarding the voices of unheard children. Hmm Looks more like how they would like to see their women to me.

www.facebook.com/#!/mumsnet?sk=wall

Go to post
MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 08/03/2012 22:40

@AliceHurled

I reported a post that defamed women's aid. I have had no reply. Why is that ok? Because women's aid aren't threatening you with lawyers you don't care, even though women's aid work for the benefit if so many users if this site?

Oh and happy women's day Hmm

You probably haven't had a reply, AliceHurled, because we haven't got to your report yet. We are a bit swamped We'll get back to you/act on your report as soon as we can.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 08/03/2012 22:08

@LineRunner

I would like to know under exactly which circumstances MNHQ would hand over to the police or any other party my name and address, given that these could then be obtained by a third party under discovery rules.

Does MNHQ have a written policy on this?

If I don't like it, am I able to make a request to have all my personal details deleted permanently from MNHQ's database, and all my posts deleted, to keep my children safe?

LineRunner, here is our Privacy policy

And yes.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 08/03/2012 22:01

@NormaStanleyFletcher

I can't believe that details are being handed over.

This thread is about to be full btw - I doubt it will be extended by MNHQ.

Do we want a new thread started?

Just to be really clear, we haven't handed over anyone's details to any third party. We haven't been asked to. And we have no intention of doing so even if we are.

Our policy is, always has been and remains, that we never hand over anyone's details to a third party without their permission - unless we are specifically and legally compelled to.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 08/03/2012 21:58

@smallwhitecat

I think this is actually quite serious. Helen, please clarify if it is MN policy to hand over member's details on receipt of police request, or if you insist on court order or similar compulsion. Because you know, don't you (please tell me you know) that you don't have to give the coppers stuff just because they ask. Once we know the answer, we will know how to act.

Of course we know.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 08/03/2012 21:46

@LineRunner

MNHQ There is a huge difference between being 'legally compelled to' give details, and being 'requested' to do so.

Which is it?

Am I safe on here?

Think it's safe to say we were legally compelled, LineRunner. Apols for worrying you.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 08/03/2012 21:44

@Nyac

Mumsnet wouldn't hand over our details, they stood firm against Garry the adman.

Indeed we did.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 08/03/2012 21:41

@Nyac

On international woman's day, a men's rights organisation - Fathers for Justice - silenced women on Mumsnet.

Mumsnet accepted this, despite their stated commitment to free speech.

How have you been silenced, Nyac? We've just asked everyone to stick to our Guidelines - and said that we will delete posts that break them.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 08/03/2012 21:40

@smallwhitecat

"unless we are specifically compelled to do so by law." which given the grasp of legal issues there is in these parts, presumably equates to "whenever someone threatens us with legal action, however ill-founded"

I don;t want to alarm you all, but I wouldn't believe a word that comes out of this particular orifice, not now anyway

Well, think what you like of my orifice, smallwhitecat, it's the truth. While I have worked here, we have had numerous requests for poster's details, often accompanied by the thread of legal action. I can only think of one instance where we eventually complied - because the police requested us to.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 08/03/2012 21:36

@runningforthebusinheels

That's as clear as mud Helen Grin

Thanks for the clarification though - you're not bothered about them slagging off MN to this extent then?

Not sure that "not bothered" captures it. We probably prefer to "rise above".

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 08/03/2012 21:35

@smallwhitecat

It wouldn't occur to the lamebrains at HQ that they could threaten F4J with precisely the same sanctions as they are being threatened with, given all the crap that's been published on their site about MN'ers. If what is on here is actionable (it isn't) then what's on there sure as hell is. Spineless.

That would assume, smallwhitecat, that our intentions are the same as theirs. They aren't.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 08/03/2012 21:32

@BeerTricksPott3r

Would you have given them our log-in details like they asked, MNHQ?

Out of interest?

No, we never give anyone any information we hold on our members without their permission - unless we are specifically compelled to do so by law.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 08/03/2012 21:30

@runningforthebusinheels

I do understand why MNHQ have to be so careful - after all the SWMNBN business. But I trust this won't turn back into the debacle that was Tues night MNHQ? With no criticism of F4J being allowed to stand at all? Surely it is not defamatory to criticise a public organisation? Especially when you are using uncontested facts published by them themselves. Or quotes from already-published articles.

I really appreciate that MNHQ seem to have stopped the F4J trolls on here, and thank you for responding to my request so quickly and deleting all the misogynist rubbish being posted on your FB site. But you know they are calling us man-haters and child abusers on their site. It may have been deleted now (although I doubt it) but someone wrote that it's "not just the individuals posting on MN, it's the whole MN organisation now." That was the just of it - defamatory surely?

Please don't gag us and prevent us from discussing this highly politicised, lobbying, organisation - oh the irony!

We're not gagging anyone. Just asking you all to stick to our Guidelines.

And, no, it's not defamatory to criticise a public organisation. Although you could, potentially, say something potentially defamatory while doing so

HelenMumsnet · 08/03/2012 21:11

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 08/03/2012 21:08

@Nyac

"Really? That post hasn't been reported to us as being potentially defamatory."

I'm not following. Are you saying it's OK to call Matthew Wright a cunt, right up until the time his lawyers or representatives email you and say, it's potentially defamatory? But until then anything like that can stay?

We are a post-moderated forum, Nyac. We don't pre-moderate posts but we will remove posts that break our Talk Guidelines once we are made aware of them.

So, in the scenario you paint, yes.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 08/03/2012 20:59

@BeerTricksPott3r

I'll tell you what isn't deemed to be defamatory.

Posting disgusting things about a man with obvious mental health problems in prison (featured on a TV programme). That he should be 'put down' was one of them.

Strangely, my report about that was brushed off with "Spirit of debate/challenge on the thread" bollocks.

Pity he didn't have f4j bigwigs looking out for him, isn't it?

News to me, that one, BeerTricks. But we'd be happy to root out that report and have another look.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 08/03/2012 20:57

@ThisIsExtremelyVeryNotGood

For example, if someone posts a link to a newspaper article about a person, and posters discuss the information in that article, is that defamatory?

No, not necessarily.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 08/03/2012 20:56

@BeerTricksPott3r

It's such a fine line, isn't it?

If I say I think the images published by f4j are reminiscent of porn involving children and must surely be the product of some sort of disordered mind I may well be deleted.

It's a valid opinion, however and I'm not alone in holding it.

It's such a shame that MNHQ are on the other side of that line to me.

No reason to delete that one.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 08/03/2012 20:46

@Nyac

I think there's a Matthew Wright thread that needs the censor's attention, too then. I think he got called a cunt.

Really? That post hasn't been reported to us as being potentially defamatory.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 08/03/2012 20:43

@TunipTheVegemal

Seriously Olivia, if you're going to set a precedent and start deleting all the personal attacks on people who aren't on Mumsnet isn't that going to make a lot of work for you? Because if this is going to be a site where anyone ELSE in the public eye is fair game (eg when we bitch about Jeremy Paxman on the University Challenge threads for his snideness and mispronunciations) but no criticism is allowed of Matt O'Connor and his delightful mates, that's a bit problematic, isn't it?

We're not setting any precedent, Tunip.

We will delete personal attacks made on Mumsnet members by other Mumsnet members - once we're made aware of them.

And we will also delete potentially defamatory comments - once we're made aware of them.

Both these policies are in our Talk Guidelines. Nothing has changed. We're just reminding you about them.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 08/03/2012 20:40

@FrothyDragon

I mean, Happy International Women's Day, Mumsnet Feminists! We're going to silence you for old times sake. Wine

We're not silencing anyone. We're just reminding you of our Guidelines.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 08/03/2012 20:40

@BeerTricksPott3r

Mumsnet.

Where you're not allowed to challenge questionable images and the motivations behind their dissemination.

You are free to challenge as much as you like, BeerTricksPott3r, as long as you stick within our Talk Guidlines.

MNHQ

OliviaMumsnet · 08/03/2012 20:23

Evening
We'd just like to remind you all to post within our talk guidelines - ie no personal attacks and no potentially defamatory comments. In the face of legal threats, we will be removing posts that are potentially defamatory. We'll also be deleting personal attacks. If you're concerned by the deletion of any post (since yesterday) and would like to ask us why it has been deleted, we'd be happy to answer but we hope you'll understand that we may have to err on the side of caution in our decisions to delete.
Thanks
MNHQ

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 07/03/2012 12:38

@NarkedPuffin

True. Maybe just the message then, without locking it.

Yes I think this is a good plan.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 07/03/2012 12:36

@FirstLastEverything

"We don't only allow posts from people who "like" women". Maybe not, but don't you want to encourage posts from people who do? I am Shock at this.

I would also like to emphasise the point others have made, that on other sites joining purely to post about one issue, on one board, counts as trolling. Possibly a need for a 24 hour time lapse between registering and posting?

Loads of folk join to post about one issue - you don't know that that's all they'll end up posting about until you give them a bit of time. Tbh I think it would be a mistake to ask folk who eg needed immediate help with something like sleep, their relationship, or even dv to wait 24 hours.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 07/03/2012 12:32

@Nyac

I guess people who don't like black people, or who don't like gay people, or who don't like jews, or who don't lesbians or who don't like disabled people are also welcome to come on over and promote their agenda.

Maybe we could see if there's a group of Holocaust deniers who could take up residence and then who we can deal with robustly.

Yes well as said previously I was trying to make a subtle (possibly to too subtle point) that you don't have to be a particular type to post here but, hey ho, let's invoke Godwin's law...

Watch this thread for updates

Tap "Watch" to get all the latest updates