to draw your attention to MN'ers being threatened with court for posting

[gordyslovesheep]

By Samaritan's Purse

I know I'm not the only one

who else have they decided to silence?

It's quite interesting that they dislike criticism so much

ThePrism
If people have authorised / requested deletion of posts that someone has complained about then they have done all that is required of them. It is not in their power to actually delete the posts but they have instructed the relevant person to do so.

I really don't think anyone need be worried about being sued for millions. The publicity would be terrible for them, and right at the time they are recruiting schools for their Xmas campaign.

The advice on post deletion is being cautious - eg if a poster uses her RL name on Twitter, and links her RL name to her MN name, under which she's posted about her blooming MIL being a PITA. Potentially embarrassing, but not drastic.

The tweets are probably automated, TweetinginFury. I'm guessing someone monitors the account but may not be actively tweeting right now.

FWIW I was on the receiving end of the QE threats
I opted NOT to have my posts deleted
I supplied my details to MNHQ so that if QE decided to go for me then MN could not be shut down for something so petty

I expressed opinions, one of which was that QE were overly aggressive in patrolling chat threads
I took advice and have the case that their threats vindicated my opinion

it is a great shame that the UK has opted to limit free speech through the changes to the slander and libel laws

Tag HQ into a tweet telling them a thread on MN needs their attention. That'll work.

Suffolk, if I've remembered you right, you've done some stunning work here over the years. I won't say on what, as it would undermine the point of your deletions.

But .

I've defended them in the past believing what they said about the religious info only going in when appropriate.

This has totally changed my mind

My local radio station support & promote the shoebox campaign in a big way. Can anyone who knows the issues better help me put together a letter/email to them asking them to reconsider this year?

ThePrism
I am saying that if SP latch on the the fact that post is still there then the poster cannot be blamed if they have already asked MNHQ to delete it and MNHQ haven't done so. The poster can't do any more than request a deletion; they can't make it happen.

Haven't read the full thread. First thing that springs to mind is Monty Python. I believe somebody once said that 'Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition'!

I wonder if Franklin Graham is a friend of Pastor McConnell of Northern Ireland. Pastor McConnell said "Islam is heathen, Islam is satanic, Islam is a doctrine spawned in hell,". To me, it all appears to be a similar mindset. When Peter Robinson issued his comments of support for him, he said that Mr McConnell had been demonised because of his remarks, and that there "isn't an ounce of hatred in his (the pastor's) bones".

Robinson also said that it was a duty of any preacher to denounce what he described as "false prophesy". Thing is, preachers don't seem to like it back at them!

It's amazing what preacher chaps in general expect to throw out there under the protective umbrella of religion. They think they should be allowed to say the most vitriolic things, but nobody can dare question them. In the past they were unquestioned and didn't have to account for themselves as they were preaching to a like minded audience. However, the world has changed.

Donations and collections lead to an ok living, I'd say. Maybe better than ok in some cases. I expect some does make it's way to causes.

I've probably become cynical in my old age.

I think sending out these emails; while not being aware of the laws in relation to information being court ordered and information that was given via surveys etc and not volunteered was foolish.

Surely MN should have checked the legalities and agreed a plan of action for both posters happy to give detail and those not and opting for deletion.

Posters can chose not to give their info. But it may be court ordered anyway.
Survey info may be used depending on the legalities of the court order.
No one ha confirmed what happens if you agree to deletion i.e no further worries.

This feels like 'Pick a or b. We cannot tell you the exact result of your choice. We'll get back to you. Night!'

I do understand that you are concerned, but as Chazs says you have taken the necessary action by requesting takedown.
It is now MNHQs responsibility if they are still there, not yours.

Tweeting
Having previously been a recipient of one of the emails in question,
it is extremely clear - there is reference to the law in question
as is the information requested and the use to which it will be (or not be) put

as I said, I supplied my details
I refused to have my posts deleted

to date I've heard nothing more from the bods at QE

I suspect that if those being threatened by SP believe they were entitled to their opinions and stand their ground, SP will do the same

The church I attend supports SP. Due to SP's aggressive actions on MN I will be strongly suggesting that we do Rotary/Mustard Seed boxes instead.

Kate, you could re-register with a new email address and new nickname, I think.

That way you still get to use MN but your identity isn't closely linked to the old one.

And if you can't come back, and I'm thinking of you.

If you re-register using a different email address, even MN won't know it's you.

MN have been pretty vocal about the issues of libel reform. I don't think they would abandon their users (although they could perhaps work on their communication!).

For the future, I'd like to know

a. The exact legal situation re libel laws and posting on MN
b. If MNHQ are legally obliged to hand over poster's details, should they already have them on file
c. How MNHQ plan to support users - a PR and Social Media emergency plan would be handy
d. If MNHQ plan to campaign more on this issue

But Mumsnet stated up thread that the email was not clear and then went on to say they were unsure and the survey data wasn't specifically covered in the act so they weren't sure it would apply or not.

How is that clear?

We're sorry if the mails we sent were at all unclear on that point - we had thought we had included something saying that we would NOT pass on your details without your permission, but we will check.

The Act just doesn't seemed to have envisaged a circumstance in which a poster's details would already be held by the organisation for some other reason. And it probably wouldn't occur to most complainants either.

'We do not, as a clear and overarching rule, pass on your information, unless you specifically consent to us doing so or we are specifically required to by law.

We always take things on a case by case basis, but a court order is a court order!

Clear as mud.