to think that unless its agreed by the OP their post should not hit the newspapers

[heckythump01]

www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwi2y7zMqZzQAhXhDMAKHSqDCu0QqQIIMTAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Ffemail%2Farticle-3902718%2FShe-s-focused-retirement-menopause-Husband-sparks-outrage-asking-leave-older-wife-s-ageing-him.html&usg=AFQjCNGOKi9R92jLsEaWhDX0o-JdkiST3Q&bvm=bv.138169073,d.d24

think this is a bit harsh, i bet his wife will be well aware on his feelings now..............! Feel for his step daughter aswell.

[honeyroar]

I used to go on a work specialised forum that DID take legal advice and was ready to go to court over information taken from posts on their forum. We all had a sentence that we had to put under our posts (it was fixed so it always came up), it said something like "I do not give permission for this post to be used by anyone else".

[NerrSnerr]

Mumsnet had a huge number of hots per day. If you don't want people you know recognising you then don't post recognisable stuff. MN can't stop it and why would they want to. Articles in the DM means more traffic to MN and that means £££

[YvaineStormhold]

It's a shame. This forum can be a real support for people in terrible circumstances.

This trawling by the DM for stories must be off-putting.

[WannaBe]

"I think it's vile that people coming to discuss embarrassing or troubling problems that they can't discuss with people in real life are being spread in national newspapers or on TV. It's a terrible shame that Mumsnet can't feel like a safe place for individuals who may feel vulnerable and/or alone." but mumsnet isn't a safe place. It never has been.

As I've said on the other thread. It's always been the case that people have been recognised in RL from posts on here and we've even had threads where friends/husbands/partners/sisters etc have appeared on threads after recognising themselves being talked about. I've been here for eleven years and nothing has changed.

And absolutely no sympathy for the stupid poster from today's post. So she posts an identifying thread which is then pulled because it was in the mail, then she name changes and posts another one identifying herself as the poster whose thread was pulled. Way to go. [hmm[ some people are just born stupid. Or trolls, whichever takes your fancy.....

[WannaBe]

Personally I think it's worse that so many disingenuous mn'ers read the daily mail and then come here to froth with their fake concerns over breaches of privacy. Don't want to read MN threads in the daily mail, then stop reading the daily mail.

[ViewBasket]

What's disingenuous about reading the DM site as well as this one? It may not be appealing to many, but it's not forbidden.

[Trills]

It is if you read the Mail and contribute to their advertising income and yet come on here to complain about their perfectly-legal-but-distasteful methods.

[ilovesooty]

There is no way a public forum where anyone can read without registering can ever be considered a "safe place".

[CockacidalManiac]

Hmm, I commented a few times on that thread. One way of avoiding being quoted may be to have a ruder username. It might be an idea for MN to put a sticky at the top of relationships advising people to be careful.
When people are vulnerable, their guard can be down.

[WorraLiberty]

Jesus how many of these threads do we get per week now? 3/4/5?

Yet some people still don't get that this is a public internet forum.

And then the OP does the Daily Mail the favour of posting a link to the story, thus giving it extra clicks and therefore more revenue.

You couldn't make it up

[monkeywithacowface]

It frightens me that adults have no grasp of what it means to post on a public forum. Usually the same ones that allow their 10 year olds facebook accounts and instagram and say "It's ok cause I monitor it and they have it set to private"

[monkeywithacowface]

Good idea Cock maybe I'll change mine to Iwipemyarseonthedailymail

[booklooker]

It's enough to put me of posting.i don't bother any more

Oh, the irony!

[Believeitornot]

I used to go on a work specialised forum that DID take legal advice and was ready to go to court over information taken from posts on their forum. We all had a sentence that we had to put under our posts (it was fixed so it always came up), it said something like "I do not give permission for this post to be used by anyone else"

Can MN do this?

[Believeitornot]

Because I think it is a bit fucking cheeky of journalists to steal material in this way.
It is theft. Just because it is publicly available, it doesn't mean it is for the taking.

[monkeywithacowface]

Lazy journalism for sure and probably very deliberate because DM knows how they are viewed on MN so it's a big "fuck you" to posters on here. Maybe people should stop linking to their stories

[TheNaze73]

It's not stealing material.

This is a public forum. The moment you hit post, it's in the public domain.

[CockacidalManiac]

I don't think putting anything under the posts would provide any protection; we sign up to MN's t&cs before we post.

[CockacidalManiac]

But it is lazy churnalism.
Go out and find some proper stories, you Tory cunts.

[VeryBitchyRestingFace]

I want to know what job the soon-to-be-spurned wife has for retirement to be even a speck on the horizon at age 48.

[VeryBitchyRestingFace]

And no matter what anyone says about public forums, freedom of the press, yadee yadah, it is cuntish in the extreme for newspaper "journalists" to trawl sites like this for fodder.

Does this site have a bereavement/stillbirth forum? They'll be skulking around in there for material next, if they haven't already.

[CockacidalManiac]

Yep, I really don't know how the pond life who work for the Mail/Express/Sun etc can look at themselves in the mirror.

[SDTGisAnEvilWolefGenius]

Having a rude username won't stop the press from quoting you - they will just call you 'another mumsnetter'. Using rude words in your post - equally ineffective - they will edit or asterisk it.

[VeryBitchyRestingFace]

The DF do like to print a photo of the original post if they can though. Can't have a news story w/o a photo, after all. That runs the risk of looking a bit, well, ... intellectual.

So maybe everyone should preface their poss contraversial, DM attention-attracting post with a nice chorus of:

fuck the Daily Mail
Fuck the Daily Mail
E I O my daddy-io
Fuck the Daily Mail

And repeat at the beginning of every new paragraph.

A bit tiresome admittedly, but it would hopefully create too much work for the asterix flunkie over at DM Towers to bother with.

[WorraLiberty]

Honestly, no-one here is that important to them VeryBitchyRestingFace.

They just print the post and blur any names with swearing in them. So does the Matthew Wright's show.

Lazy journalism for sure and probably very deliberate because DM knows how they are viewed on MN so it's a big "fuck you" to posters on here.

How is it a big 'fuck you'?

They're printing stories from a website that has a huge Daily Mail readership and always has done...well at least in the almost 6 years I've been here.

If anything it's a big 'thank you' and threads like this just add to the amount of traffic going to their site - meaning they can charge their advertisers shit loads of money.