Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

AIBU to be furious about this article and cancel my Guardian subscription?

475 replies

whycantwegoonasthree · 01/12/2017 16:50

www.theguardian.com/society/2017/nov/30/children-removed-from-family-home-over-parents-open-relationship

The children weren't removed because of their parents 'open relationship', they were removed because the parents were neglectful and didn't safeguard the children. The headline is a deliberate distortion.

This is a dreadful baity headline/article at the expense of the polyamorous community. I expect better from the guardian - to which I pay a f-ing subscription...

AIBU to cancel my Direct Debit?

Angry
OP posts:
PumpkinSquash · 02/12/2017 18:30

Suppose it has said "children removed from family home over parents homosexual relationship". That wouldn't be ok. So why is this?

WTAF are you even going on about? Have you even read the article?! How on earth is introducing your children to multiple partners and introducing a safeguarding aspect due to not looking after them got anything in common with being homosexual?!

tinysparklyshoes · 02/12/2017 18:31

And I'm not yet one repeatedly posting on a topic about which I purport to care not a shiny

What I said was I wasn't interested in the lifestyle and had no beef with it in either direction.

the article does not say what you think it says. You are simply wrong. Even if you weren't, you are so on the wrong track. Don't claim the worst examples of your lifestyle choices as examples. It's a terrible cause to pin your agenda to.

PumpkinSquash · 02/12/2017 18:40

Suburban, are you equally concerned that all parents who are posting on here aren't neglecting their children? Pumpkinsquash has posted a lot, maybe she's being neglectful.

Grin Oh, my days. You're actually quite funny now, you've got to be on the wind up. Grin
Me, most of my posts are made late evening/early morning as I'm a silly twat with sleeping problems who should really go to bed instead of arguing with nutcases on the internet Grin
Big gap in not posting today as been out doing family outings and things.

Original poster
whycantwegoonasthree · 02/12/2017 18:49

I was only querying why Suburban was so concerned if I in particular was neglecting my children as opposed to other posting a lot on this thread - your was the first name which sprang to mind. Sorry about that

Personally I assume that most people can balance real life with posting on MN so I don't give a shit how much you or anyone else posts. Suburban, though, clearly does...

Sorry to hear about your insomnia though. I've struggled with that in the past. It's shit.

OP posts:
PumpkinSquash · 02/12/2017 18:55

I was only querying why Suburban was so concerned if I in particular was neglecting my children as opposed to other posting a lot on this thread - your was the first name which sprang to mind. Sorry about that

No worries

Original poster
whycantwegoonasthree · 02/12/2017 18:56

Oh and magnesium supplements and B12 transformed my sleeping, for what it's worth.

OP posts:
PumpkinSquash · 02/12/2017 18:57

Personally I assume that most people can balance real life with posting on MN so I don't give a shit how much you or anyone else posts. Suburban, though, clearly does...

People are wondering why you are so hell bent on aligning yourself to a case of neglect, and continuously posting and ignoring absolutely everything that everyone is saying to you.
You clearly either haven't read the article, or the case in question hits a little too close to home and you're looking for validation on your lifestyle choices or something.

CheeseyToast · 02/12/2017 19:09

I just think it sounds as though you don't understand how journalism works. You're not alone! There are millions of non-journalists who claim to know journalism better than those who are trained and experienced.

Original poster
whycantwegoonasthree · 02/12/2017 19:15

I'm not. I've explained ad nauseum about why I posted and what my beef is with the articles. I'm certainly not looking for affirmation of my 'lifestyle' my last foray taught me that. I may be a deviant, in your view, but I'm not an idiot.

I genuinely thought I might be able to have a discussion about journalists bias and poor reporting. I should have remembered that MN loses its collective shit about non-monogamy and starts foaming at the mouth at the very thought, and so this was only going one way.

(So maybe I'm a bit of an idiot, thinking about it...)

Thereafter if someone says something about me or my family which is patently untrue, and also exceptionally offensive, I'm not going to just let it stand unchallenged. Similarly if asked a question I will attempt to answer it.

Such is the stuff of which Mumsnet is largely made, sweetheart. Or haven't you noticed?

OP posts:
Original poster
whycantwegoonasthree · 02/12/2017 19:18

I think journalism in so-called 'quality' newspapers should be honest, accurate and not distort fact to create sensational headlines.

That's what the Daily Mail is for.

If that makes me naively idealistic then so be it. And if 'training' in journalism makes you not care about that stuff then that's a real shame.

OP posts:
tinysparklyshoes · 02/12/2017 19:19

I genuinely thought I might be able to have a discussion about journalists bias and poor reporting

Then you picked the wrong article to do that. You seem obsessed with the idea that anyone disagreeing with you (which is everyone) its because they disagree with your lifestyle, rather than the fact that you are wrong. When they say they don;t care about that, you are rude and dismissive.

Again, what is it about these parents that you are identifying with so much that you can't even read these articles properly? It's YOUR bias that is the issue here, not the guardians.

MissMustBeAMug · 02/12/2017 19:28

*But even without mentioning all the other risk factors there would be enough in what is written in that article for there to be a serious cause for concern.

Or do you think there wouldn’t? Taking everything at face value in that independent article, wouldn’t you agree that that was irresponsible, neglectful and harming the children involved?*

Original poster
whycantwegoonasthree · 02/12/2017 19:29

I honestly can't keep saying the same thing over and over again to you sparkly. It's pointless.

OP posts:
Original poster
whycantwegoonasthree · 02/12/2017 19:37

Ok I'll try and spell it out even more clearly for you Sparkly, one last time.

I am not aligning myself with the couple in the article. I'M saying that the poor reporting was doing that by suggesting that these people had their children removed primarily because they are in an open relationship.

Thereby THEY are aligning these people with perfectly respectable and capable parents in open relationships like myself.

That's EXACTLY and ENTIRELY my point.

I'm not defending these parents or suggesting their relationship bears and real resemblance to mine or indeed most open relationships.
*
The damn article was suggesting it did.
*
Which is why I posted.

Jesus wept. Is it that hard to grasp?

OP posts:
MissMustBeAMug · 02/12/2017 19:38

Can you answer mine op? I’m genuinely curious, I’m wondering if that is the reason we keep all butting heads.

Do you not think, basing it purely on what is written in that article, that the actions mentioned are enough on their own, without the other factors being mentioned, to cause a lot of damage to the dc in the story?

PumpkinSquash · 02/12/2017 19:39

I honestly can't keep saying the same thing over and over again to you sparkly. It's pointless.

You're right, it is pointless as you refuse point blank to listen to anyone.
Why exactly are you posting? Crack on with your multiple partnering, your talking "sex positively" to your children, explaining why you all share each other ignoring the fact that your children are picking up on the sharing aspect and asking questions at the age of seven
You clearly desperately want to be right.
As I said, crack on.

Original poster
whycantwegoonasthree · 02/12/2017 19:42

Missmustbeamug, no, I clearly don't think the open relationship - which is what both articles focus on - would in and of itself be cause to remove the children. But that's what the articles suggested.

Clearly the way these parents were behaving, both in how they were conducting their relationships, and many many other factors would, should and did.

I'm not disagreeing with the court's ruling in any way. Just the reporting of it.

OP posts:
honeyravioli · 02/12/2017 19:43

I honestly can't keep saying the same thing over and over again to you sparkly. It's pointless

Yes it is as it doesn't make sense no matter how many times you say it, you don't answer anyones questions, you don't listen to opposing views, you are rude and you keep repeating absolutely nonsense.

honeyravioli · 02/12/2017 19:44

But that's what the articles suggested

They do not. Categorically not. We all can see that except you.

That chip on shoulder must be blinding you, you can't read.

MissMustBeAMug · 02/12/2017 19:45

We must be reading them differently.

In both articles, to my eyes, it clearly states the behaviour that was wrong and damaging to the children. Even ignoring all other factors.

Not specifically the open relationship itself (as anyone who read past the title would see) but their behaviour in it. Bringing multiple strange men to the house to have sex with while the children were there etc.

PumpkinSquash · 02/12/2017 19:46

I am not aligning myself with the couple in the article. I'M saying that the poor reporting was doing that by suggesting that these people had their children removed primarily because they are in an open relationship.Thereby THEY are aligning these people with perfectly respectable and capable parents in open relationships like myself

The fact they and you are exposing your partners to multiple sexual partners all at the same time (it's not "just two" as you said upthread, you said yourself there were several) is an issue in itself.
You don't want to admit that to yourself though.

Original poster
whycantwegoonasthree · 02/12/2017 19:47

I am listening pumpkinsquash and the minute you say anything sensible or useful I will absolutely take it on board. But all you seem to have done this far is deliberately misunderstand, claim that my lived reality is not what I know it to be, and pick fights based on both of the above.

So there has been nothing from you so far to take on board, frankly.

OP posts:
PumpkinSquash · 02/12/2017 19:47

exposing your children to multiple partners that should say. Doh.

Original poster
whycantwegoonasthree · 02/12/2017 19:50

Honeyravioli / which questions haven't I answered exactly?

And I've been exasperated but have tried very hard not be rude. Sorry if I've bit managed that. I have tried.

I am listening. Just not agreeing.

OP posts:
honeyravioli · 02/12/2017 19:50

If you didn't see yourself in this article, why would you be so mad about it? That is what doesn't make any sense.

I know people in open relationships, they wouldn't for a second identify with this article. Its so weird that you have and even weirder that you can't see that despite people explaining very clearly to you.