to think Mothercare are threatening MNHQ ?

[cumfy]

There is a current AIBU thread which originally had the title:

to be absolutely furious with c&&&ing mothercare?? (sanitized)

Within an hour or so after I emailled their PR dept highlighting the poor customer service detailled therein, the thread title was changed to:

to be absolutely furious with &&&&&&& mothercare??

My interpretation is that Mothercare tried to get the thread pulled, but instead MNHQ agreed to amend the title
Coincidence:o

Note there are many <a class="break-all" href="http://www.google.com/search?q=site:www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/+intitle:cunting&num=100&hl=en&safe=off&client=opera&hs=EvS&rls=en-GB&prmd=v&filter=0" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">AIBU threads with cunting still in the title; so seems unlikely this was simply a "language" issue.

am most alarmed that corporate biggie asks and gets post edited

fwiw,i had dreadful customer service from mothercare

• incomplete cotbed
• delivered broken items and then blamed me

to an extent i expect mn to use and exercse its moderator capacities internally for mn posts. dont expect an external body to successfully apply pressure

Did Mothercare also offer to sort out the problems the MNer was having with them,, If not they had NO right to ask for any title ammendment!IMHO

Who wants to start a thread:

AIBU to be upset with Mothercare holding satanic rituals in their stores and practising witchcraft to curse their products so they break 10 minutes after the guarantee is up?

Don't like the word, but I support the poster's right to use it. FGS. Slippery slope.

yes i suppose had mc addressed her greviance they might feel entitled to ask for edited ammended post.

I don't like cunting etc in thread titles, BUT... given that many have complained about this and got nowhere, why is it different if a corp does so? Do mothercare advertise on MN? Why the politesse to corp but staunch position on swearing wrt to MNetters?

Good point Wonka :)

I think Justine did the right thing, they asked nicely. Anyone with even half a brain could work out it wasn't going to be 'Lovely Mothercare'

Very uneasy about this - thought we were unmoderated unless breaching MN rules.

Can't see any breach there...

Looking at the original title, one was convinced that Vicky Pollard had been busy. Profanities always make person/thing/numpty look utterly thick, innit.
Can't be bothered to read it anyway.

Well, it has kind of backfired on MN. I probably wouldn't have bothered to have read the original thread (sorry OP) if it hadn't been for this thread. Now I am just on your behalf and actually, I personally think that Mothercare is pretty crap so your experience has probably tipped the balance to put me off shopping in there ever again.

I'm afraid I do hate the word cing, but don't think MNHQ should have modified your thread title while leaving other cings alone.

As an aside, as Mothercare is seemingly monitoring MN, perhaps someone from there could explain to me how a 50 pence lollipop from my little local farm shop sells for 70 pence in Mothercare?

no likey this at all.no more tesco/asda profanities then.people should be able to express ire,disatisfaction esp at corporate big companies without being censored

I think the only person who should be allowed to alter/censor the title of a post is the original poster. I would be mightily pissed off if someone amended my words without my permission.

Besides, taking 'cunting' out of the title, doesn't make Mothercare look any better, so don't know why they bothered. It's basically just started up the thread again.

mn owns site and should retain editorial privelege.not disputing that.am disputing acquiescing to corporate pressure

Have Mothercare had better treatment than an individual poster who made the same point would? I suspect so...

I'm sure some chunting Mothercare money gets though to Mumsnet in advertising somehow.

Justine, has Mothercare contacted the MNer with profuse apologies and offers of a full refund plus compensation for her time and trouble?

They are breaking the law and know that they are breaking the law. And they have the front to complain about a customer they have mistreated swearing? How dare they! It's not their job to police the morals of Britain. It IS their job to obey the Sale of Goods Act.

tbh didnt see op.cunting would have deterred me.however now mc are demanding an edited post i imagine the post and its implication will achieve greater readership.

had mc ignoed it would have fallen off active convo,no one much would see it,now is big talkin point

bitty own goal there mothercare

That is strange actually considering there was a FUCKING CUNTING TESCO CUNTS (or similar) recently....

(which turned me straight off to be honest, I fuck and cunt and Jeff and shit about quite a lot, but not in the titles so much)

I actually think it is bad form to have had a large firm ask for content on a forum that has sod all to do with them, and then have it done.

I am disapointed

er, obv I meant that surely TESCO KING OF THE HIGH STREET would have protested too?

Can we also have confirmation why the other thread title with 'cunting' in it was also moderated? Was that pressure from Ocado?

I am really disliking the precedent.

So they cant get their arse into gear and give the lady a refund for obviously faulty goods but have the time to complain about a thread title?

Didnt they stop to think that if their customer service was so crap, titles like that wouldnt exist.

Disclaimer: Yes, I'm another disgruntled Mother-dont-care customer. As a peniless first time mum, they sold me a pram that would collapse with my baby inside it! Kept happening even after several repairs and they still wouldnt refund it. I was so worried that my ds would get hurt, I put the pram in a skip even though I didnt have any money to replace it and did without.

Bloody hell.

Cannot believe MN changed the title because mothercare snapped their fingers.

What a sad, sad, day

Cunting in the title when discussing poor quality service has been happening on MN for years.

I think the principal issue is defamation.

In the eyes of the law MN is seen as a publisher, with ultimate power to edit content.

Basically, MC just need to whisper "defamation" and MN will have to capitulate or face messy law suit and legal bill.

My point is, it does seem likely (IMHO), that Clare Francis (MC) did in fact whisper this word to MNHQ.