I'm relatively new here. Are we allowed to mention a Portuguese Supreme Court ruling today about a missing British child in Praia da Luz.

[meltownmary]

Don't want to break any rules. Thanks.

Threads about ongoing court cases or open investigations will usually go phut sooner rather than later. Although factual comment and links to media articles are - in theory - fine, the armchair detectives start to espouse their theories, and that's that.

It's so sensitive it's almost impossible to discuss it online OP

I think their loss overrides our wish to discuss , as compelling at it is

I am not cross with you OP it's very normal to want to discuss it but maybe best in RL

BTW I think he's a cardiologist rather than a surgeon.

No he was a plastic surgeon. GM is a cardiologist, but is not the doctor who has caused MN to have a high court ruling handed down to them.

To all of you calling the OP goady, I've often wondered the same because I know they get pulled but having never seen one as I've only been here on/off for a year it's a reasonable thing to ask.

Don't be so quick to jump down people's throats!

Do goady fishing obviously!

How would you know about policy on lots of sites regarding a single case unless you spend a lot of time nosing. Are you a journalist?

On a completely different website, I once said that none of us were in Portugal at the time, so none of us know what happened, and speculation was pointless. At which point a complete stranger launched into me, saying that I was one of those conspiracy theorists, who posted on websites about the McCanns. Weird. Some people are very touchy.

I was just reporting factual issues.

As a relatively new user I don't know how to ask to get the thread pulled.

Can anyone advise if that is possible?

Although by the looks of things it won't survive long anyway. No worries.

And there are so many posts on other threads about Trump and lack of free speech/movement and so on. But there we are.

Everyone was a new/relatively new user at one point.

Thanks.

mycatwantstokillme1 within two days of your first ever post on MN, did you start an AIBU thread to ask though? That's why it is considered goady because I imagine most posters, like me, think the OP is a PBP.

Could you tell us where the MN case is reported and about the High Court details? It does seem we are talking at cross purposes here.

I was a member of Digital Spy a few years back. These threads didn't last long then, either.

Well I would be more interested in this Court ruling handed down to MN
What has happened there?

The OP has already linked to the story she's talking about.

The story from Sunday is here

www.theregister.co.uk/2017/01/30/mumsnet_plastic_surgeon_court_order_user_id_messages/

.

I would be interested in the MN court ruling too. It sounds as though it could potentially affect all of us. It's so easy to be misinterpreted on a thread and a completely different meaning construed than one you actually meant.

There's a thread in Site Stuff too.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/2840487-Sunday-Times-story-today-about-Mumsnet-having-to-reveal-posters-names

mycats.

I have posted on a few threads of current interest since joining. I'm sure you have discovered that too.

Today was a ruling by the Supreme Court in Portugal about a case many are interested in.

I hope you don't mind me posting on issues of current value.

I never thought in this place that allows swearing of all sorts that my posting history would be in the frame. I think I will have to resign fortwith!

Thank you.

We all know we can't speculate (and quite rightly!) the circumstances or involvement online.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask if we can discuss elements of the case that have been published in the media stating facts.

I've been here about 8 years and even I don't know the rules about these things. I've iften found it isn't clear cut.

I think MNHQ message is spot on in this instance.

Rafals,

Just to clarify, I am the OP, and I did not mention ANYTHING to do with that issue nor did I link anything to it, just for the record ahem.

Thank you.

fuzzyowl no, it's true I didn't. But I really didn't think OP was being goady. I also don't know what a PBP is! (I also thought LTB meant lamp the bastard until recently!)

No, but other posters did and a few more asked about it.

And you did ask what happened on Sunday.

Previously Banned Poster

Mycat, PBP is previously banned poster. And I'm with FuzzyOwl on this one.

Ah you are in general sensible, with a sense of humour too! Thanks for the steer WRT to this issue.

@mycat

I like that post. I don't know what PBP is either. But then again I'm just learning here! (Well I have been here since it was founded but then I would be lying obv).

Mycat I think the reason some cases are allowed to be discussed and not others is that Madeline McCann's tends to bring up an argument about the rights and wrongs of decisions her parents made and it can get quite heated, with accusations being thrown around. Rather than discussions about Shannon Matthews where we know what happened and there were convictions.

It is too easy to hide behind a cloak of anonymity. I am sure the best policy is only to post something you wouldn't mind putting your real name too - as on facebook.