Use of child death as an analogy for sense of loss should be punishable by wearing a dimwit hat for ever more

[wibblies]

Fucking Liz Fraser in the weekend guardian is the latest in a long line of journalists and writers who seem to think this is ok.

Here's a sample of what she has to say in her article about her sense of loss in watching her children grow from primary age into teenagers:

"When the joy goes - and it does, because life moves on and you can’t play peek-a-boo with a 12-year-old who wants to play Minecraft with his similarly zit-infested mates – it feels like bereavement."

"Those young children are dead now. They are gone."

"The bereavement is long, slow and refreshed every day."

Just so you know, Liz Fraser, watching a child grow up as it gets older is really not anything like not watching a child grow up because the child is dead. I know this, because I've tried them both.

Please tell me I'm not the only one who notices this shit? Please tell me you recognise that it's not the fucking same at all? That it's not even a tiny bit similar and that it's crass in the extreme to suggest it?

Kacie that's actually me she is tweeting. Going to name change on here now though. I actually did not tweet her anything at all horrible. Pointing out the Arthur Miller tweet suggests her apology was not genuine. Something others pointed out but she singled out my tweet.

I honestly do not understand why she cannot handle any opinion at all when she wrote a piece for a national paper.

I think that she feels
1 'I'm a good person'
2'I said something a bit silly'
3 'I've said sorry - and been HILARIOUS about Arthur Miller- so they should let it lie',
4 'those meanies say I'm a bad person - which is definitely wrong (see 1)
5 'therefore anything else they say is also definitely wrong'
6 'I am being victimised by loonies'

Oh, I do hope you appreciate I was being sarcastic above Belle - you haven't written anything insulting.

I honestly don't understand her responses, I am baffled.

If she really finds this innocuous level of comments and criticism horrible, she really needs professional help - or to stop writing on the Internet. Or both.

As a communications professional l, I am even more horrified by it all after hearing she's been mentoring others on how to deal with this stuff.

Her Tweets this afternoon / evening just seem a bit peculiar - she's saying things like "more nastiness", "it's horrible", and then you click to expand and see that it's in response to perfectly reasonable Tweets with no foul language, no personal attacks - just the statement that the Arthur Miller tweet made it clear that the initial apologies weren't genuine, and that a genuine apology would solve everything.

She really does seem to be deliberately manufacturing an 'attack' on her when most Tweets I've seen to her seem quite calm and balanced. Or are loads getting deleted...?

Ahh, slow typer, me. I was referring to the tweets Kacie123 screencapped above. I'm also baffled!

I was wondering if they were being deleted, but then why wouldn't she screenshot/link to those as "proof", not the innocuous ones? Bizarre, really really bizarre.

Ain't no such thing as bad attention, when your livelihood depends on attention.

Mumsnet still needs her onside, too.

She can't really lose.

'I am being victimised by loonies'
Yes. This is the card she's playing.
She should have said:
'I am very sorry for the offence I caused. I am going to ask the Guardian to bring the article down.' Then no more tweeting about what a poor ickle lamb she is.

Kacie oh no, to be honest I did doubt myself when she was like oh why are you being horrible, what do you hope to gain and signalling my tweet out etc.

But I stand by what I wrote. If a) she did not want opinions she should not have written for a national opinion and b) she should not have wrote the Arthur Miller tweet among some of the other tweets if she wanted people to accept her apology and all go away.

She should have absolutely done what dexra suggests.

Why do you think mumsnet needs to keep her on side multivac? Is there a national shortage of mediocre bloggers?

I think she's probably got the message now, don't you think?

There's not much else she can do personally.

I agree with Heebie's analysis.

I think she genuinely thought she was writing a lovely, sweet piece on the nostalgia of leaving childhood. I don't think she meant to hurt anyone.

But when she was told that she had hurt people, she couldn't square that her perception of the piece. So instead of taking a deep breath, re-reading and genuine apology, she gave a 'half' apology and felt that should be the end.

When it wasn't the end, it wasn't because she had failed to respond to what was said to her, it was because the people saying it were mean bullies.

The Arthur Miller tweet. The one about not understanding metaphors. All the repeated "I have apologised" without being actually able to show a full apology. They all show an inability to engage with the issue and just playing to her audience of 'fans'.

Which actually shows up something that has bothered me about twitter for quite a while. You can pretty much control the conversation if you're the one with lots of followers. Even if there are lots of voices on the other side.

MN are hugely reliant on positive media coverage.

The problem comes when the media and interests of MNers collide.

Lots of us can leave, MN will survive. We are, on the whole, faceless posters who change names regularly. We could be anyone.

Journos are MN's oxygen of publicity. MN have chosen the journos over its members. It's not the first time and I doubt it will be the last.

It's wrong (imo) and sad but it will never change.

Lord no, Grabby.

But she has a useful media presence. She's on the list of people to call when Loose Women et al need a Voice About Parenting. She takes a good photograph. And even with a mere 6410 Twitter followers, that still makes her worth, what, about 1000 or so anonymous 'mumsnetters' - of whom there is, let's face it, an almost infinite source.

Snort at the tweet 'I don't understand why this is OK, I've been directly CRITICISED on here,,,"

Err. Really? Poor ickle journalist has been ... What? Insulted? Trolled? Stalked? Harried? Spammed? Oh no, it's the worst of the lot. The lowest of the low. She's been criticised.

Everybody apologize NOW. It's gone far enough!

Daily mail exclusive: "sad face blogger. I wrote some words that upset grieving parents. They read my words and told me I hurt them. Then they dared to comment, with opinions, on my writing which I did to get reactions, and that was fine until the evil bastards err, reacted. Waaaaaaahhhhhhhhh. "

I haven't read all the posts (sorry!).

I just can't believe this got past the editor! If national press want us to continue reading their articles the quality needs to be better than everyday blog type rantings.

When my DS was being assessed for ASD I went online and more than once read things like, 'you need to give yourself time to grieve for the child you never had'. FFS imagine reading that when you are looking at your 'perfect in my eyes' beautiful baby boy, that I am very lucky and grateful to have. Using terms like bereavement and grieving are not just thoughtless, it's downright hurtful and far poorer in standard than amateur writing. I think the guardian should be ashamed for allowing this to be published in their name.

OP and others, I am so sorry to hear of heartbreaking loss xxxxx

To put up with this shit on top is a complete f insult.

Never in all my life have I seen a person so unable to admit they have made a mistake. .

It is utterly bizarre.

As for the "people have contacted me directly" - erm? Did you write the article? Who else would people contact?!

It is so weird.

Has she no friends?
Does being a semi celebrity mean you are so surrounded by fawning "yes people" that you lose the ability to self-assess entirely?

It is so strange!

I am very shocked and upset by MumsNet's unusually mellow response to this rather vicious woman. Celebrities are slagged off here on routine basis (Victoria Beckham,anyone?) with not a word from MNHQ. This nasty piece of work upsets MANY PARENTS and MNHQ goes the softly softly route...Just wondering what's up with that MNHQ?

I tweeted saying asking did she think it was appropriate to compare her experience to bereavement. And got blocked. I'm SUCH a troll

It's the disability campaigner Nicky Clark who is encouraging her to call the bereaved parents who have tweeted her 'dicks'.

Oh, FFS, that woman can't resist the drama, where it exists. I blocked her way back because her life seemed to revolve around all the (alleged) meanies who were constantly trolling her.

There often is a genuine grief process involved in coming to terms with a child's life long disability or illness, mmmmcake, as I alluded to, this afternoon, but it's still nothing like grieving for a dead child. I've mourned for both of mine and for the fact that their lives are just so blood hard, sometimes (having a 7 year old tell you they want to be dead is really bloody heart crushingly painful) but, when the dust settles they're still here with us and we are still laying down some lovely memories in between all the truly shit bits because, well, they're not dead.

Can I just say, she's not a journalist. These comment pieces are for anyone to vent their opinions. I've seen some stuff in the Guardian that has incensed me. Far worse than the DM, incredibly. Pontificating bilge.

She's just a blogger. That's all.

And she writes...

Like this.

For effect.

I have been on mumsnet for years. The increasing use of mind numbing adverts bombarding my eyes plus the inability of MNHQ to stand up for its posters just signals to me that the site now is all about making money

And not to do with supporting parents or each other.

Sad but life I suppose.

Yeh, we critiqued her article Miscelleneous ....
collective Mumsnet conclusion ... it was shit poor