Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk

Back to thread
Original poster

To be loving the Liz Jone and India Knight Feud?

26 replies

Vagabond · 30/10/2012 20:45

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2220669/Spouting-filth-s-VERY-strange-way-stick-free-speech.html

In which, middle class India Knight called la Liz everything under the sun on her nasty twitter diatribe of nonsense.

Schadenfreude, I know.

Go to post
MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 05/11/2012 15:02

Hello. So sorry not to have posted in answer to your questions till now.

Ok, so t'other thread some of you referring to was deleted because it had deteriorated into a succession of highly personal and potentially libellous comments.

That's also the reason for (most of) the deletions here.

Of course, we have have no problem with anyone criticising India Knight or Liz Jones for their actions/words but we do draw the line at nastily offensive personal comment.

To use the well-worn football-coach analogy, please can we ask you all to remember to play the ball not the (wo)man...

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 05/11/2012 16:30

@EldritchCleavage

Since IK does not appear to remember to play the ball not the (wo)man, why is she bering invited for a webchat?

Erm, I'm not aware that she is being invited for a webchat, EldritchCleavage.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 22/11/2012 21:28

Yes sorry about deletion city but there really are some pretty unkind comments on this thread.

Just because someone is in public life doesn't it really doesn't mean they're fair game. Fine to take issue with someone's actions, I know lots of Mumsnetters disagreed strongly with IK's column about mental health, but the personal stuff is unpleasant and bitchy and not what we're here for.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 22/11/2012 21:35

@ThePathanKhansWitch

Poor Pinot

bups is indeed festering but not fer me to say where

I don't know exactly as I was away when the last stuff happened but I imagine because it descended into a lot of nastiness - we were pretty close to deleting this one. I will check though and get back to you.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 22/11/2012 21:41

Just to add to Justine's post, we did post earlier on in this thread (several days ago) to explain the other thread's deletion.

I'll repost that post of ours again here, just to be helpful:

"Hello. So sorry not to have posted in answer to your questions till now.

Ok, so t'other thread some of you referring to was deleted because it had deteriorated into a succession of highly personal and potentially libellous comments.

That's also the reason for (most of) the deletions here.

Of course, we have have no problem with anyone criticising India Knight or Liz Jones for their actions/words but we do draw the line at nastily offensive personal comment.

To use the well-worn football-coach analogy, please can we ask you all to remember to play the ball not the (wo)man... "

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 22/11/2012 21:42

@AllYoursBabooshka

I was not "personal".

I simply pointed out that she can stick up for herself and has made offensive comments about others before.

I can't see how that warrants deletion, it might not be nice for her to hear but it's the truth.

Why are HQ so hell bent on protecting India Knight from everything (even the truth) when she has been so ignorant and insulting about a large section of the forum without apology. You certainly don't have the same strict rules about poor old Peter Andre.

Or is it because I asked Sali to stop whining? She was whining!

Yep it was the combo of "ugh stop whining" and the "feigning dismay" and "no stranger to upsetting and insulting" comments. Needlessly aggressive and unkind?

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 22/11/2012 21:49

@Jizjones

Me too Justine please...short term memory loss claim not fictitious. Thought? I was referring to an overview, and locale based indifference to, Thread. Did I personalise it?

(Total) Recall Oestrogen (lack of it related to Ms Jones indeed, but nothing she hasn't mentioned herself...Team angst here), and Londinium-centric, but not much else.

Yes was because of the stuff about spelling of names -
"Sali ? Really? Honestly? Off to MN Baby Names to post on this as a fatuous mis-spelling of a perfectly good first name" and some more stuff of that ilk which in fairness I didn't entirely understand but felt a bit mean girls/ school playground?

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 22/11/2012 21:58

@AllYoursBabooshka

Fair enough.

I would imagine an adult to be a little more thick skinned though, especially after coming on the thread simply to tell us all how horrible we are because we have the audacity to be honest about one of her besties.

I wouldn't go as far as aggressive though.

I think we'd all do the same if we saw a bitchy thread about one our mates on a forum wouldn't we? We would never talk about other Mumsnetters in the way we sometimes do of slebs/columnists. Everyone would take a very dim view and rightly so.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 22/11/2012 22:05

@PoppyAmex

"felt a bit mean girls/ school playground"

To be fair, if that criteria stood we wouldn't have a huge entertaining chunk of Mumsnet Talk! Grin

Yes I take the point Smile. Tis a fine line between funny and mean. Think this thread crossed the line.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 22/11/2012 22:08

@ThePathanKhansWitch

Justine, no no, bups sounded the klaxon, i qanted her to squeeze, she wouldn,t. We really are talking about two different threads. Honest.

steps away wailing.

Me too!

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 22/11/2012 22:33

@BeerTricksPott3r

Oh Justine, this was a Zombie Thread until Sali popped up on it to defend a friend. Who can't bring herself to post her own objections.

You'd call that one step away from Sockpuppeting if it were anyone else, you know you would.

I know what you're saying but not everyone knows about zombie threads. Just as likely that someone just sees the words, gets riled by and posts as is sockpuppeting.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 22/11/2012 22:48

@Londonista1975

Justine, why are you getting involved with this thread?

Sorry, but I'm quite new to M.H so unsure of hierarchy (if there is one) And day to day monitoring. Do you all take shifts watching the threads? Or do you only comment on certain ones?

Honestly, because the duty person asked me to look at it. It must have been reported a bit and our duty person has had a heck of a full on day with one thing and another, so she's just a bit knackered. I don't do site duty any more (gave up that about 3 years ago) but I do stick my oar in get involved from time to time. We have a team of approx 8 community managers, led by the fair Helen, who do shifts - day and eve. I've been threatening to put their mugshots up and have duty person's one light up but so far they've resisted.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 22/11/2012 22:49

@BeerTricksPott3r

Yes, if someone searches for things pertaining to themselves then they will likely find something, I agree.

Well, don't we all...

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 26/11/2012 22:53

@BupcakesAndCunting

I know I can be an acid tongued barstard at times but I don't honestly think I said anything last night to Sali that warranted deletion.

She came on and resurrected an old thread to tell us we were nobs and I asked why she wouldn't apply the same criticism to her mate IK. Wasn't personal/insulting at all. Am feeling very Hmm about the whole thing, actually. Like "oh the little people have upset the big people. Best delete"

Pathan, you do seem worryingly au fait with my bodily misfortunes. May I suggest "The Ailments and Fistulas of Bupcakes" as a Mastermind specialist subject, should you ever appear on the programme Wink Wine

Since when is it a crime to resurrect an old thread though - that's just bizarre? Why on earth would you have unwritten rules that newbies wouldn't know about that allows a free for all? It's just excluding and unfriendly to new people which is something we try very hard to avoid.

Re little people vs big people what I think you mean is that we should apply different (harsher) rules to newspaper columnists re personal attacks than to MNetters who aren't columnists. And I don't really see why that should be the case? I's not a clear distinction anyway. Lots of people on here would fit into both categories which is another reason why we try to treat all posters and posts equally and not decide what's ok and what isn't depending on who's being talked about.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 26/11/2012 23:13

@Pinot

Well as Sali had appeared at the recent blogfest thingy, I imagine Justine et al didn't want to then piss her off. She may not come and do the next one, IYSWIM. And she may use her column/FB group to slag off MN, and that then may take flight and may affect advertising income.

I've never actually met Sali as it happens but of course I don't want to piss Sali off. Why would I? I don't want to piss anyone off!

I think it's perfectly valid to take issue with something someone says on here. We've never deleted fair criticism of anyone's views or actions, whether they're sitting next to me and doing in a webchat (Naomi Wolf, Maria Miller) or it's a thread about c**nting Sainsbury's and we're talking to their marketing director about advertising with us (that was fun!). We believe in free speech and letting the conversation flow.

It's perfectly valid to criticise what India Knight has written, as many people have recently on here. It's perfectly valid to tell a newbie (Sali) why you're cross with her mate, India. But why the need for all the personal attacks as well? Why the need to belittle her name? That's all I'm saying. You'd (quite rightly) expect us to delete attacks/ unpleasantness to a Mumsnetter if it was reported but if we delete attacks on a someone in the public eye when it's reported, it's because we're worried about revenue, all of a sudden.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 26/11/2012 23:15

@SantasStrapOn

Oh good heavens, I got deleted for calling them whiny? Grin

Oh stop whining Santas Smile.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 26/11/2012 23:33

@Southeastdweller

Correct me if I'm wrong, Justine, but I recall a lot of personal attacks on celebs in the 'what stranger can't you stand?' thread recently. And they weren't deleted. Maybe they weren't reported, though.

No I imagine they weren't. We will usually delete personal attacks if they are brought to our attention - we don't read the 35000-odd posts a day on here though. Am sure there are many personal attacks that pass us by.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 27/11/2012 14:03

@Pinot

Justine

You quoted me in a box and got a bit tetchy with me - but I was trying to help, and explain. You're preaching to the converted.

I haven't slagged anyone off on this thread, or been deleted. I was waffling on about beauty shizzle whilst it was all kicking off around me. Not my style to get in argies with anyone, let alone Sali Hughes who is my fave beauty journo. Note I did a blush-worthy fan-girl-scream, up there

Just want to make that clear.

I got tetchy Pinot because you implied we were only interested in this thread for revenue reasons, which is always liable to get me tetchy tbh, as I think it's unfair. I admit I positively bridled at the suggestion and thought about calling you names!

But thank you for not slagging anyone off Smile.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 27/11/2012 14:09

@BupcakesAndCunting

But I still don'tunderstand why you deleted my post where I merely asked Sali why she wouldn't apply the same criticism to her friend, IK. I wasn't inflammatory/attacking anyone.

I thought you were Bupcakes - one post of yours was:

"She's a big girl"

Must. Not. Say. Anything.

We took that to mean you were making a remark about IK's weight?

Second post we deleted was just aggressive - "twatter feed" "acid-tongued gobshitery" "need to get out more".
They are not conventional personal attacks granted but they are pretty rude and unfriendly. Why the need for that? You can make the point you want to make without the aggression, surely?

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 29/11/2012 10:46

@LittleFrieda

The best bit about this thread is where someone says "She is a big girl" and then Justine objects to that and explains: "We took that to mean you were referring to IK's weight." I'm speechless.

I think Mumsnet need to start deleting their own posts.

And while you're about it, could you please delete this one as well as repeition of a libel ....

Sorry you've lost me. Why are you speechless?

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 29/11/2012 10:52

@BupcakesAndCunting

Fine to call someone mental. Not fine to call someone chunky.

Would love you to show me where we have ever we said it's fine to call someone "mental"?

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 29/11/2012 10:55

@BupcakesAndCunting

JustineMumsnet, I think it's because you deleted me for saying must not say anything to "She is a big girl" (quite rightly Blush) and then you repeated what I said anyway.

Grin

Yes, as said at the time you were deleted for unpleasantness. Think that needed explaining as you were asking why you'd been deleted when you'd done nothing wrong...

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 29/11/2012 11:01

@BupcakesAndCunting

No, no, no I wasn't referring to you at MNHQ. I was referring to IK/Sali x being able to mete out insults to others on the interweb but how it's not OK for others to do the same. You'll see from my post prior to that one that I was talking about things said on Twitter too.

Sadly we can't control the interweb, but on MN we have standards Smile

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 29/11/2012 11:03

@BupcakesAndCunting

Justine, (not sure I am enjoying being rollocked by the headteacher) I acknowledged upthread that the jibes were ripe for deletion. I asked you why my first post to Sali x was deleted, the one where I asked why she wouldn't apply the same criticism (bitchy/immature) to her friend IK. But you didn't answer that, you just said "well you were rude and aggressive in THESE posts" then quoted the rude ones.

Why rollocking? I'm just answering points you've made on this thread. I'd call it engaging, actually.
I'll look up what you said earlier down the thread that was deleted...

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 29/11/2012 11:14

@BupcakesAndCunting

Justine, (not sure I am enjoying being rollocked by the headteacher) I acknowledged upthread that the jibes were ripe for deletion. I asked you why my first post to Sali x was deleted, the one where I asked why she wouldn't apply the same criticism (bitchy/immature) to her friend IK. But you didn't answer that, you just said "well you were rude and aggressive in THESE posts" then quoted the rude ones.

Two deletions of yours that I can see - both posts were quite aggressive and bitchy/sarcastic so I imagine that was why they were zapped:

"Funny, cos that could be applied to your bumchum India, could it not? Typical bully's mate talking there; she can give it out but don't give it back to her because she's lubbly weally behind the scenes."

"Aw that was cute wasn't it - hmm face" after shooz27 posted:
"Logging off now. I've said what I wanted - to point out that many of these comments are factually incorrect - and it's fine by me that people disagree with me. Just know that these very personal things that are said publicly on here are always heard by the people they refer to. It's not like gossiping in a friend's front room, it's far nearer to going up to a stranger in the street and calling them fat or accusing them of being ashamed of their mother. It's completely public. I'd suggest that if you wouldn't say it to someone straight, then don't say it on here and think for one minute it's any different. But if you would, then I guess that's between you and your conscience."

There is an awful lot deleted on this thread so imagine duty person was quite busy zapping and trying to make a point. In many ways once threads descend into this kind of bunfight we're better off just deleting the whole thing rather than trying to police. Certainly would save us some bother...

Watch this thread for updates

Tap "Watch" to get all the latest updates