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.

Is any reader here a lawyer? Does anyone know the copyright law for this sort of thing?

I thought, if for example a person's letter was to published, their permission would have to be asked first.

I wrote to Mumsnet to ask a few weeks ago but there was no answer.

I realised Mumsnet is public in that a person could read posts without signing in, but had not thought anything on it it was public property.

Well, the article is by Martha Cliff.

Aren't you something else Martha?

That is utterly disgusting.
Yes you can argue that this is a public forum etc but have a tiny bit of understanding.

Cunts to a man, and they can quote me on that.

How unbelievably cruel...

someone buys the Daily Mail ...

I saw it too and was shocked. The poster put up a photograph of her son too so anybody in her real life would definitely know it's her. So intrusive!

This is disgusting behaviour from the daily mail. The poor op :(

MN terms of use state that you cannot reproduce for commercial purposes without permission (with thanks to Donkey on the Site Stuff thread for pointing this out) - which feels exactly what the DM are doing.

I saw it because someone I know mentioned a sad story on the Mail Online website. She doesn't know I use MN but I thought it sounded very familiar so went and had a look.

I have reported both of my posts in the hope that MNHQ will comment. I don't see how you can have it both ways - you can't expect people to use the site and ask for support, if they are scared that their stories are going to end up online in Paul Dacre's bloody rag.

I remember that post, DM are bloody disgusting.

I remember that post, DM are bloody disgusting.

fucking awful

That really is a new low.

I would like to see a response from Mumsnet, hopefully confirming that the poster from the original thread gave their permission for the post to be printed. I do wonder if the permission needs to be granted by the OP as well as Mumsnet or if Mumsnet themselves can grant the permission?

The article is very poor, they;ve taken a very sad event and missed an opportunity of where to go offering support and guidance to others going through something similar

Terrible. This is why I never post on MN for support.

you can't expect people to use the site and ask for support, if they are scared that their stories are going to end up online in Paul Dacre's bloody rag.

Abso-bloody-lutely.

MN prides itself on being a haven of support for parents, so I want to see them coming down hard on blatant exploitation like this.

#griefthief

If MNHQ don't get back to the DM about this pronto I shall start to suspect there's a press mole in the MNHQ office cynical moi?

Oh, and btw 'Martha Cliff' is almost certainly not the writer plagiarist's real name.

This is the 3rd thread I've seen about this. MNHQ are should Defo respond to this.

Disgusting, lazy journalism.

This is an absolutely abhorrent thing to do. Shame on you Daily Mail. Hoping MNHQ respond soon too.

Twatty newspaper is twatty.

Yet again :(

I have been thinking this for a while, I noticed the thread about a poster that didn't like her friends child was also printed recently in the mail.
Because of this I am quite reluctant to post on lots of threads.
I wonder if there is a way that the website can only be viewed by members? And maybe something that hHQ could do to protect users from ending up in national newspapers

Never read the Daily Mail - its for Neo Nazis, UKIP nutbags and those who think tory scum are nice reasonable people.

I'm curious - how do you know that they didn't contact the poster for permission to run the story? And... I don't read the Daily Mail so wouldn't have the foggiest clue what's written in there on a daily basis, yet so many people seem to pick up on stories but don't read the paper. How come?

This isn't a story that I would imagine is front page, so presumably people are actually reading the DM either a paper copy or online, in order to find such stories?

I know Op said someone mentioned it to her, but what about all the other instances? Is that always as the result of a passing mention?

It is Martha Cliff - here's her twitter account twitter.com/MarthaThursday - absolute disgrace, I remember being in tears reading that thread and I feel so sorry for the OP that this has been done - I too hope that MNHQ come down hard on them, or at least give a response as to what they intend to do...