What happened to get the Lily Allen thread deleted?

[Mintyy]

Can anyone briefly summarise or pm me?

Thanks

I'm sorry but I don't understand your argument that its somehow different about Peter Andre, Sparklingbrook.

The wider discussion on the LA thread was celebs who spout rubbish. Isn't that what Mumsnet is so fond of mocking PA for?

There are 13 threads with the title "* (man) for example is a twat". And those are "in the spirit of Mumsnet" are they?

I'm sorry but I don't understand your argument that its somehow different about Peter Andre

I assume there's a mumsnet approved list of naice middle class 'clebs who will get any negative threads about them deleted on the grounds that they are insufficiently gushing and thus not 'in the spirit of mumsnet' and another list of 'clebs who are fair game.

So far we know that Lily Allen is on the protected species list and Peter Andre and Jordan aren't. I wonder who else is? Nigella is probably a cert for the protected list, being both posh and well connected.

oh @protected species list Yes Nigella is on THE list they horsewhip you if you say a bad word about Nigella Kerry Katona is fair game though

Ridiculous MNHQ just ridiculous. This even tops locking the entire site on new years eve/day

so it is OK to slag off 'chavvy' or orange celebs but not the posh ones with rich parents/connections. That is how it appears anyway.
Kerry Katona Peter Andre Katie Price = fair game

PG, Lily Allen, Nigella Lawson = hands off you nasty nest of vipers

thats how it seems sometimes yeah,

Who is PG?

Peaches Geldof I assume

I hope MnHQ reflect on this and the strength of feeling on this thread. I'm not holding my breath.

For me I would just like some clear guidelines on the matter, if there is a protected list who is on it and so on.

if they are Posh and maybe a londoner then they are off limits Northern and working class (with money) is fine though

We could have a crack ourselves. ..
On the protected list I nominate: Jamie & Jools Oliver. The middle classes seem to falling over themselves to rim his piles for pointing out that a diet consisting solely of turkey twizzlers isn't ideal.

Hq will argue that they reacted to reports from mumsnetters and I find the people who reported just ... well, I can't actually say what I think because it will break talk guidelines.

Re all this I know what I mean but I can't explain it and everyone will just have a go at me anyway. So I won't even try. Sorry.

I do not believe there is a list hung on the wall in MNHQ of slebs that are 'fair game' and aren't though

falling over themselves to rim his piles
gross!

There probably is a hierarchy - posh Londoners, personal friends, useful contacts... That doesn't surprise me. We all like some people more than others.

But a few people libelled Lily Allen. Not many, but if someone libelled Katie Price then MN would remove those posts too.

I didn't agree they should have removed the thread, but now I'm coming round to their way of thinking, because people don't understand what libel is. There's no reason why they should, but if it was me, I couldn't be arsed to keep checking.

I think it would have been better to say that than claim that personal attacks aren't in the spirit of MN, when clearly, with some people they are.

Without repeating them, limited, what were the libellous posts? I admit I'm not fully across the technicalities of libel and slander.

MNHQ were on the KP thread I linked to, so it was reported to them. I think they are busy, short staffed or trying to make a decision on this matter as I reproted the GB thread and nothing on there yet I can see from MNHQ.

Without going into details, briefly you cannot say anything that lowers people in the opinion of right-thinking members of society.

So in this case you can't accuse someone of a criminal offence unless they have been convicted.

If someone has discussed committing an offence in the past, with or without conviction, you can refer to that, but if they've said they don't do it any more, you can't say that they are lying unless you have solid proof. That goes for whether you say it or imply it.

Like I said, there's no reason why people should understand, but once it's pointed out, it's not that difficult to grasp.

BTW, I didn't report any posts, and though I don't agree with your POV on Allen, I think what she does is up for debate and I don't think the thread needed to go. Though some posts would probably start to piss me off and my finger would hover over the red button.

But, hey, that's the job...

Without going into details, briefly you cannot say anything that lowers people in the opinion of right-thinking members of society.

Surely that means that just about everything on mumsnet, including celeb threads, telly addicts, MIL threads etc is libellous in that case?

That's really interesting, thanks Limited.

You can't say anything that lowers people in the opinion of right thinking members of society.

Will remember that.

I believe there were loads (perhaps the majority) of people on the thread who don't share my pov on Lily. That's why its so annoying that the "why does everyone have to be so nasty?" thread reporters win the day.

Limited the actual number of podts that suggested Lily Allen had been at the showbiz sherbert was very small xould have been deleted.

So national treasures like Barlow/Beckham/Lawson/Nolan are highly thought of by right thinking members of society and the likes of Andre/Price/Katona are not well through of by right thinking members of society and are fair game? Katona for one should be protected under the equlaity act for her diagnosis of bipolar, so it should not be allowed to stand about her? is that right?

The heirarchy of celebs in general is interesting.
I remember somewhere[not mumsnet] reading that c list celebs were in awe of other celebs such as Angeline Jolie etc and were oohing and aahing like us ordinary mortals!