To be annoyed with MT, and to ask who [email protected] is ...

[CrispWinterSunshine]

Feeling a tad annoyed for two reasons.....

1. I reported a post containing an inflammatory comment. It named a professional person, in a position of trust, and cast doubt on their integrity, with no evidence, and with the effect of potentially damaging their reputation. Mumsnet Towers replied to say they thought the comment was an honest expression of opinion. In my view the comment may or may not be defamatory - I don't know because I'm not a lawyer - but it was undoubtedly a personal attack, which is meant to be against Mumsnet Talk guidelines. Mumsnet Towers suggested I should contact the person in question to alert them to the comment and see if they would like to take it further. It really makes me wonder how Mumsnet Towers decides which personal attacks are acceptable (politicans? celebrities? civil servants?, education professionals?), and which aren't.

1. The Mumsnet Towers reply to me was cc'd to [email protected]. The word "community" bothers me. I have no idea whether this is just a small team of people at MNHQ who deal with reported posts, and who are properly mindful of user confidentiality issues (fine), or a large community of Mumsnet users who for some reason get copied in to all the latest MNHQ goings on (not fine), or something inbetween. Anyone know? I did ask, but didn't get a reply. Perhaps I'm being paranoid, but I'm feeling a loss of trust with MHHQ over the first issue, which is impacting my judgement.

lottie I think you need to read the OP's responses more carefully rather than attacking the OP over an imagined slight.

At no point did she suggest that you or your replies to her posts were vicious. She simply commented that in her opinion, posts on AIBU tend to be more vicious generally.

FWIW, I'm inclined to agree with her opinion on that matter.

Always better to talk to people than about them

I agree lottiegarbanzo, which is why I tried to talk to them. I posted here in frustration when they didn't reply. When I've reported things before they've been pretty quick.

Are you one of Mr Hemmings 27 mistresses?

Ooh, Beyond, suppose he has a diary to prove he doesn't have time for 27 mistresses! Could be a court battle of wills between you and his present fragrant lady love.

fwiw I think most people who have even a modicum of sense can tell when someone is being unfairly slagged off. I doubt very much that any professional person of any repute is going to find that reputation damaged by an anonymous attack on here.

But sensible people pointing out that a public figures is indeed a bit dodgy?

Hopefully that might have an impact.

Careful Beyond, don't want to make a PA on threads about PAs!

confuddled I was hoping it might look more like a compliment
And therefore be safe from deletion

Anyway, I don't believe it's 27. That was just what his wife knew and they've been separated awhile...

I think it a bit odd that you are prepared to stick up for this 'professional person' who you feel has been treated badly on an anonymous site, and then when you email MNHQ worry who may now know your actual name.
You dug yourself a bit of a hole there, didn't you?

One person's 'vicious personal attack' is just another's 'robust honest opinion'.

there is no science to it. I think this site does the best it can, which seems to be pretty good most of the time and when they get it wrong they acknowledge that too.

I think you are making a mountain out of not even a mole hill - rather a very small lump of something.