For all of you who don't understand the disgust with the Daily Mail...

[Spero]

I have just been told they have published an article about John Hemming in which they name me. Both my real name and my user name.

Luckily for me I don't care. Luckily for me I decided long ago I would never put anything on line that I would be ashamed/upset/frightened for anyone else to read.

But for lots of people this would be a complete and utter disaster. People post really personal and sensitive stuff on this site about the worst times of their lives, looking for help and support. They must know that.

Note that they never bothered contacting me to find out which category I fell into.

So if anyone wants to start another wide eyed innocent thread - o I just don't understand why you all hate the Daily Mail so much!

Does this kind of thing help you understand a little more?

I will link to the scum bags but only because I hope people might leave some 'helpful' comments about JH.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2532649/MP-John-Hemming-banned-Mumsnet-posting-Italian-woman-forced-courts-caesarean.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

Edward - if JH has been crucified here it's only because he bought the wood, climbed up on the cross and asked us to hammer in the nails.

I was only too happy to help.

Bloody hell Madame I am doing my best but he keeps wiggling and saying he wants to get down now he has sobered up.

tell him the views better up there...

So why complain about your name being revealed? The so called families who do not support John's view will go to you for business.

"so called families"

What is a "so called" family? Are there fake families posing as real families??

I don't think Spero needs to tout for business, unlike Hemming!

you have got to love the delicious irony oh JH getting cross about people publishing 'untrue' things.

I intend to open a 'Family' Agency. I will put together random people who look good together, and hire them out to folk who want a family, but just not for life...maybe at xmas or birthday parties or something.

As a sideline I will hire them out to any professional body that has need of a family for the day.

Think it will work? I have high hopes.

Edward. Read the thread.

The objection is that what the DM has done - without reason or justification - is going to scare and worry a lot of people who don't want their real life name linked to their user name.

As I have pointed out, I am not one of those people. But, as others have pointed out, that makes me very unusual in this or any other on line community.

To post both my real name and my user name in the context of that story looks like nothing else but an attempt to intimidate.

But thanks for pointing out the silver lining, I didn't think about my new niche practice with 'so called families'.

How exciting! Just how do they differ from mere 'famiiies'. Are they actually lizards?

Just don't call it Adopt a Family Madame as some people would think it was a scam.

If you're not worried then why make a big deal out of it? People are named in papers daily, that is why each paper has a legal dept to check articles before publication.

I think I will call it SoCalledFamilies....

as in, I have hired a so called family for next weekend...

or, I saw a so called family today in town

Sigh.

I am making a big deal out of it because I think it is potentially a very big deal for other people.

Sorry, I don't know how else to explain it to help you understand.

this website has provided invaluable advice and assistance to people in real dire straits. They share things about their lives which they would be very unhappy to find publicised. Privacy is a very important part of what makes us human. That is why it is a protected right under the European Convention.

Edward, if it helps, what I am bothered about is that they posted both my user name and my real name side by side.

do you see how that could be a problem for some people on here?
can you tell me what possible reason or justification the Mail have for doing it when no other newspaper has followed them?

Hey Edward, if its not that big of a deal to you, why don't you tell us YOUR real name? And what you do?

Flipping heck Edward do you need it spelling out for you why its dangerous?

Example:

Gertrudetrain posts on a thread that she has just been a victim of DA. She doesn't know what to do, where to go etc etc.
spero comes on & gives her a bit if advice & signposts her to women's aid.
Christmasbaubles comes on & says she's a policewoman & gives her info about assault, restraining orders
Gertrudetrain comes back and discloses sexual assault
snowman posts the processes involved in court
christmasbaubles asks about any DC
Gertrude states her DC were in the room when assaults happen
strawberry bear advises she works for children's services and offers safeguarding advice.

The daily mail publishes the users names, professions & username together. Good? Or bad?

Just wandered on to proffer spero a wall upon which to bang her head.

EdwardSnowden

I hope JH and his supporters get crucified in a public place.

That would be good karma, I guess.

At least, as we pay when we make mistakes, they should pay for their mistakes, lies, frauds, etc etc.

For me JH and his supporters are like a gang of hooligans trying to make football appear as bad sport because of them. Replace football with social services and you see what I mean.

Great analogy Gertrude. The only thing I would add is that the mail would not have published your name had JH not done so first. It's his deliberate act that led to this

Spero: "The point I am interested in is why the Daily Mail and the Daily Mail alone saw fit to publish both my real name and my user name."

Because they could? I doubt whether it was done out of active malice, more a general lack of concern for the safety or wellbeing of the people it writes about. It's not just the DM, unfortunately. Look at The Times outing the police blogger Nightjack after hacking his email account. Or the way that The Sunday Times encouraged Vicky Pryce to incriminate herself, knowing full well that the story could result in her being prosecuted. Not to mention the misery inflicted on all those people who had stories published about them when their phones were hacked. To a large extent, national newspapers just don't care about what happens to the people they write about.

I am not naive, I am not expecting newspapers to give a damn.

BUT the point remains - why did the Mail do it and no one else? If it was an interesting element of the story, why didn't they all include it?

I am afraid I will continue to see this as an example of the Mail's extremely shitty attitude - or more sinisterly that they wanted to throw JH a bone.

I think you're a bit paranoid. there's no way it's about helping JH out. they just named you because they could.

Thank you Nancy.

OK.

So I repeat my first question.

Why them and them alone? If this is simply what journalists DO because they can, why did no other journalist think to do it?

I don't think raising this issue makes me remotely 'paranoid'. I think it is an interesting question.