To think the Daily Mail are taking the piss?

[DailyFailAreABunchOfCunts]

As you may infer from my NN I am not a fan. However I saw this on today's Mail online:

DM Link

For those who don't want to click it, the DM have mined the recent thread from a poster who lost her DS at a young age, and was asking if she WBU to still buy clothes for him and join clubs. I remember the thread as it was really moving and so clear that the poster was struggling with her grief.

The Mail has lifted the story - and the child's name - lock, stock and barrel. I'd be interested in MNHQ's view on this. I realise that posts are in the public domain but this feels so horribly invasive.

I'm not going to walk out of a job with no job to go to and no means of paying the bills. Very few people would.

I did ask people to say what they did for a living, so I'd be able to critique their worth or ask about the pressures they were under from their employer. No one has done that. You've all talked about having high standards and working hard, but so what? So do I.

Tell a lie, I didn't ask people to say what they did for a living. I meant to. So what do you all do? I feel it's only fair, even though I suspect I'm going to be buried under an avalanche of posts from people claiming to work in cancer research and world peace.

Yes Mary. Bit sad that we seem to be the only old gimmers on the thread who remember it!

I refuse to believe that the reporter isn't aware of the potential consequences of publishing this story- it's disgraceful. I hope that the OP is ok.

If the reporter wanted to do an insightful article about grief, she should put her big girl pants on and actually ask bereaved people for an interview, not skulk on these forums like a flipping vampire.

"Today at work as a super professional journalist, I trawled online forums looking for something juicy. Found a thread about a dead toddler- and decided to shove a load of it on the DM website. Brilliant piece of journalism that, reckon I'm in with a shot at the Pulitzer Prize".

Ironic to ask for more personal details on this thread. I'm a health care professional and I do know how lucky I am to have a job like this where there is some protected space for working ethically - or is it just that I'll be struck off if I don't...

limited in the post I responded to you actually haven't asked for what our jobs are.

I'm a bid writer. So no, I'm not looking for a cure for cancer. Rest assured that I work in a very pressured environment. A lot is expected of me. But there in every career you can be an arsehole, or a non-arsehole. This reporter been an arsehole today.

Today at work as a super professional journalist, I trawled online forums looking for something juicy. Found a thread about a dead toddler- and decided to shove a load of it on the DM website. Brilliant piece of journalism that, reckon I'm in with a shot at the Pulitzer Prize

She probably turned up for her shift and was directed to create a story in an hour from a thread on a public site which had been spotted by the features editor because MN is a public site.

She may have spotted the thread on the public site that is MN and brought it to the attention of her features editor as a possible story. To tell the truth, if I was her features editor it would have bored the tits off me, but it takes all sorts, even in newsrooms.

Anyway, that would have ensured her survival for another day at the fighting pits that are national newspapers. I'm sure she doesn't want your sympathy and doesn't give a shit for your scorn.

MN is a public site.

What's a bid writer?

Ah Limited you're showing yourself now as my mother would say.
I'm more interested in what that little boy's mother is going through tomorrow that the stresses this particular writer may have found herself under that led her to produce this. She's an adult, she makes her own choices.

I work in education, since you want us to share, is that good or bad?

Maryz I didn't realise what you and bibbity meant when you referred to 2009.

That explanation seems very reasonable to me. Perhaps it should be a sticky at the head of every single topic or maybe it could be flashed as a warning when you press Post Message in order to make you mull it over. I don't actually mean that.

bibbity and Maryz I remember 2009 too.

Very Maryz . Careful now, muckraking Martha is reading this.

When the first column appeared in the Daily Mail it was a total surprise to all concerned including HQ. It was written by a MN member.

It caused a stir (as this one has done) but for a time afterwards HQ were toying with a sort of "If you can't beat em join em" standpoint, and they did conduct a poll to see what mn members would think about an official association between MN and the DM. Iirc the answer was an overwhelming nothankyouverymuch.

The threads are all still there.

Ah Limited you're showing yourself now as my mother would say.

My mother said a lot of things too. It doesn't matter where your sympathies lie. The writer probably doesn't care. My point is that vulnerable people shouldn't be encouraged to post distressing details on a public site whether that is by the site owners or members hungry for details. That's what appears to have happened in this case.

As for working in education: that's not precise enough. Are you Nicky Morgan; a dinner lady; or something in between? I'd really like it if you were Michael Gove.

Genuinely surprised by people's horror here. The poor mother posted it on MN. A public site.

What do you think MN exists for? To do good? Or to make the people who run it money?

Think about it.

"Well well well

The cunt that wrote that is reading this. She has edited the piece to include a video of prince William talking about the child bereavement charity.

What pathetic excuse for a person you are Martha.

UPDATED: 22:35, 26 April 2016"

So they've read my posts then. Trying to make it comply with legislation now is it? Doesn't fucking compensate for the upset they've already caused.

Limited you sound hard as nails. Good for you, guess you have to be.

MaryZ I was on MN in 2009 but don't remember the consultation. I do remember the Mail round up. I was neither here nor there about it. Well, I was, in that I'd have liked them to have commissioned me to do it.

I went to the London meet up on Saturday and had a fascinating conversation with someone who was completely clued up about internet security. There were things that I thought were tin foil hat territory, where I now realise I was being naive and she had a point.

Unfortunately I can't reveal her name because I'd have to kill you and then she'd have to kill me . But it was interesting stuff that boiled down to: don't put personal details on a public forum.