To want to set the record straight about the Cedar Falls Nurse In

[Mamagiraffe]

I am organising the peaceful protest OUTSIDE THE GATES of Cedar Falls. The protest is not taking place because Victoria tried to take an under 16 to an age-restricted place expecting special treatment it is because the spa have cancelled her booking rather than allowing her to make alternative arrangements. Whatever has happened in the past is immaterial and I am horrified by the muck-raking and bullying instigated here last night. I, personally, do not condone the online attack on their Facebook page but that is of course up to the individual., I have also requested members of the event to remove any they may have already posted but I have no power to do so. For those who are uninformed breastfeeding at 1 is not only recommended but it aids nutrition, soothing and attachment- for Victoria's child they may or may not have required a feed during this weekend but provision needed to be in place to facilitate this and it would be unfair for the child not to ensure this is possible, this does not mean that a nursing mother must be sequestered away from living a normal adult life for the duration. The rights regarding discrimination is to protect the right of the breastfeeding mother to do so. I won't be returning here to fight the fight but as MNHQ deleted the last thread I have had to start my own to give you my own twopence'th if anybody wants to contact us for more information the email address is [email protected]

I'm glad somebody else heard it too, I thought I may have imagined it! I was trying to explain the backround to DH but he was just "she wanted to do what ?, where ?, why?

Haha! Someone has commented on the cedar falls page with a quote from the MD saying they feel she could benefit from it? I think I love them just a little bit more now

MNHQ are strangely silent on the difference between viciously slagging off people who put themselves in the public eye and viciously slagging off people who put themselves in the public eye. The former - celebrities - are fair game; the latter - people who use their public FB page to whip up support for a private vendetta - aren't.

I'm not sure why.

Indeed.

Another comment on there now.

has anyone seen the comment in the county gazette about this (according to fb comment from the manager of cedar falls)?

No wanttosing I've been desperately googling to no avail.

MNHQ are strangely silent on the difference between...

No complaint whatever against MNHQ, but it would be good to know where they draw the line so we can avoid comments that get deleted.

I think it's probably just in the print copy :(

Re the celebrity thing, I'm sure they've deleted threads about celebs if they've complained about it before. Maybe that's the line and the original CF thread would have stood had the person it was about not asked for it to be deleted. Lots of celebs don't internet stalk themselves.

Sienna - that's true. I suppose the celebs have so much stuff written about them that they have to be really angry about something to pursue it further (George Clooney and the Daily Fail a case in point) otherwise they'd spend their entire lives doing nothing but policing the media.

It just seems wrong if the line is whether or not someone complains about it. And I would like that to be the reason given for deletion rather than the stuff about personal attacks because that just makes us seem hypocritical as a forum.

Any chance of an MNHQ comment on this?

I thought that was the reason given for this one? It was in the warnings pre deletion.

I thought it was deleted because there were links to facebook page and she was named
Those posts could've been deleted but her family requested the whole thread be deleted
Very amusing that one of her friends started this thread

This is what was on the deletion message:

It is absolutely fine to discuss this issue on Mumsnet, what we felt overstepped the mark was linking to an individual's facebook page as it just inevitably became very personal.

My issue with this was that as far as I was aware, the FB page linked to was a business page which I imagine was set up for the purposes of attracting as many hits as possible. I'm not sure how this equates to linking to an individual's FB page. I could give a link to Rafa Nadal's public FB page right now - would that get this thread deleted? In fact I'll try:

Here you go - Rafa Nadal's FB page.

I think it was a combination of being named and her letting MNHQ know she didn't want to be named and slagged off on here. If she (or people reading who felt it was unfair too I suppose) hadn't complained, I reckon it would have stayed.

Oh, they do delete celeb things if the person kicks up a fuss.

I got once deleted for asking Sali Hughes to stop whining when she posted defending India Knights disablist tweets.

I was, however told another time that posts were not deleted for being 'unpleasant' when I reported something much worse than stop whining.

I do think it depends on how much noise the person makes.