Rolf Harris. AIBU in being pissed off that MN deleted an ENTIRE thread - with NO reason that I can see why - with many posts on regarding this previously?

[StoicButStressed]

Context: About 6-8 wks ago, an OP (not me) started the thread 'My world has shifted on it's foundations...Rolf Harris.....' ......It was expressing how stunned/shocked/saddened she was that someone she has loved as a child had been arrested as part of Operation Yewtree.

At that point, even though there were NO reporting restrictions imposed by any Court (I.E. no-one and no outlet - MN or other - would have been in contempt of Court by allowing free speech including his name/fact he HAD been arrested), RH's name was not in the mainstream press. The reason for this was that his lawyers (Harbottle & Lewis if memory serves) had fired warning salvos to outlets 'citing the Levenson enquiry'. Today though, he has and is being openly named in all outlets (see link below).

The thread was a combination of others also expressing their shock; many asking questions as to how they were unaware he had been interviewed under caution in November and his house searched with a warrant & how on earth they hadn't seen that in press; clear clarification by some of the time-line of both that, the Harbottle 'gagging' for want of a better word, & his subsequent arrest (the one OP posted regarding); and - vitally - 'general" observations re child abuse (IE "LISTEN TO YOUR CHILD - CHILDREN DO NOT KNOW THE LANGUAGE OF ABUSE' )

MNHQ were very aware of the thread and - rightly - intervened with a warning that posts implying links with Jimmy Saville &/or possibly implicatory comments on posters own expererience of RH (however real those experiences were, IE posters who had had direct experience of working with RH and their 'experiences'/observations etc) would be deleted. Which they did. Ergo, the thread that remained post those deletions did not to the best of my knowledge have anything illegal in it given: i) no reporting or gagging orders in place; ii) anything REMOTELY referencing RH/posters direct experiences.

Yet a short while ago on my 'threads I'm on', I saw the following:

'My world has shifted on it's foundations...Rolf Harris.....'
Thread deleted
Deleted for legal reasons

WHY? And for WHAT legal reasons? (As I can see none & the above spells out how the thread HAD been modded where ness?) Feels more like censorship and the very opposite of what MN is about, including the oft stated 'we don't censor...' It just feels very....wrong??? Not just about preventing people access to legally available truths re RH, but the MUCH broader issue of our having the right to free speech here???

news.sky.com/story/1080222/rolf-harris-questioned-by-savile-police

All i have to say is i thought i was going mad, when, a few weeks i saw a vague reference to RH's arrest in a quiet news corner of yahoo.

I mentioned it to DH, and a few friends and they were all and then and decided i was bonkers.

Sadly it seems the rumours of his arrest were true then and i'm not going mad.

After swmnbn, I can fully understand why mn decide to pull threads where posters are naming people implicated in whatever fashion in a high profile ongoing case, and commenting in any fashion.

It would be a bit rich if some of those folk were able to claim an unfair trial because their image had been tarnished by 600,000 women on the most popular parenting site, blah, and that potential evidence had been discussed and was unusable as a result.

I do think you need to find something a bit more important to worry about than an mn thread six weeks ago, tbh. Bit quiet in your neck of the woods, today? Maybe start your own web forum and make your own rules about how much legal risk you are willing to let your posters take on your behalf?

Free speech my arse. Pop down the cafe with your rl friends and discuss RH to your heart's content. But don't expect mn to endorse idle tittle tattle in the midst of a legal media black out.

MN are a publisher. They have legal responsibility for anything they publish. If notified that something may be libellous, why shouldn't they take a judgment in the risk?

Maybe they get ten letters a week and take down one thread, maybe it's vice versa. Their site, their policy, their call,

It's totally different to a proposed boycott.

Always - not going to respond to your comments about me other than to say you (obv) can have no idea either why it is a subject that doesn't sit comfortably with me, or re the 'quiet in your neck of woods' pointless pointy point.

What will say though is you are talking out of your arse (your parlance, not mine) re 'legal media black out' - no such thing exists and no idea why you would even think that as is manifestly BS. Ditto am last person suggesting MN 'endorse idle tittle tattle' - was beyond clear that agreed with their deletions (of which, in context of number of posts, they were a very small percentage). That's the point - have no idea why it was deleted way after event or what MN mean when citing 'legal reasons'. Apologies if not clear enough.

If MN pulled every thread that they might later have to delete as soon as they have to delete a single post there would be a lot fewer threads around. And yes they have to balance risk, and if they feel a post is opening them up to too high a possibility of legal action then they will shut it down.

just a thought: maybe anyone who reads MN or popbitch or any other sources would be disqualified from a jury? Since juries can be skewed thanks to socially unconscious employers claiming that any absence wold be catastrophically disruptive (I exclude small companies for which absences, potentially for weeks if the case turns out to be major, could be very difficult) maybe we should all be a bit more circumspect about what we read/prompt in posts?

Afaik, provided that the publisher responds quickly when notified of the potential libel, subsequent legal action is quite unlikely. So MN won't delete threads because of one dodgy post but they will keep an eye on dodgy threads and certainly look at any they are notified about.

I wonder whether MN have libel readers (ie qualified lawyers) on hand at all times? I doubt it. If they don't, they're sensible to be conservative.

Weren't there lots of veiled hints on that thread about knowing who assorted super-injunctions were protecting?

I am surprised to think that you are naive enough to think that free speech exists!!

There were lots of hints on the thread about super injunctions including initials, if it's the one I'm thinking of.

Hi there
Sorry that the vagueness is irking.
Just to say that we deleted it for legal reasons that prevent us from commenting any further.
Thanks
MNHQ

I thought mn were perfectly clear, stoic. Legal reasons.

I'm sorry for whatever personal experience has led to your focus on this case, but it isn't going to make mn risk a law suit. However much that disappoints you personally.

If you are suggesting that you might need to talk about this for therapeutic reasons (which I would totally get) then you need a different outlet. Worldwide visibility isn't appropriate, and it isn't vindication for anything you or any other victim has experienced.

It wasn't clear that you had anything other than an interest for political reasons in the case from your op, so if your interest is rather more personal, I wholeheartedly apologise, and urge you to seek more appropriate counsel.

I don't understand threads like this, tbh. We have this handy facility called email and MNHQ have an email address available. In fact, if you can't find it, you can report any post on the forum, and say 'this isn't about the post I've reported, but I couldn't find out how to contact you....'

Why would you start a thread about this, except to be openly attacking? Why not politely enquire about the status of the thread with MNHQ directly.

Is it really that infuriating to you, OP? I don't think it can be. MNHQ, as any other publisher, has the right to choose what they do and don't publish. They've also got the right to take something 'out of print' so to speak.

Stoic - I would leave the editing of threads to the moderators/ lawyers as you clearly haven't a scooby what you are banging on about.

There are many, many legal issues which might cause a media organisation to edit/withdraw publication of material, it's not just about libel/contempt. There may issues of identification of victims, there may be advice from police, legal warnings,

Also just because it is legal doesn't mean it's right to publish or to be left standing and it's mumsnet's right to be able to delete posts which they feel are not in the spirit of the site.

The stuff about rolf Harris is now in the public domain thanks to social media and latterly The Sun, but there are longstanding restrictions to publication based on contempt of Court Act and it's up to lawyers how far media outlets can push these restrictions.

And in the end, concerning RH - what is left to say apart from hearsay and tittle tattle.