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

to be honest your name was already known, a little bit of investigative work on the internet and it wouldn't have been hard to find out lots more details about you - it wouldnt be hard to find info about anyone if your given a name. in that sense I don't see that they have done anything different to you that they do with anyone else.

First I heard of it was when I popped back here after a bracing walk in the mud with the dogs.

They may well think that because he already published my name(s) on his blog its fair game.

But I think it is safe to assume rather more people read the DM than his blog. So a little heads up would have at least been courteous.

How do these people get elected?

Peggy, the reason I am so angry is that they published both my real name and my user name IN THE CONTEXT OF a story about how JH was 'banned' for 'outing' people.

As someone else has already suggested, this could make some vulnerable people very nervous about posting here for support.

I know there is a lot of crap and stupidity on this site, but fundamentally it has been an excellent source of support and information for people going through the worst times of their lives.

I should know, I was one of them. I nearly gave up on chemo last year, and had it not been for finding Zombie on here I probably would have.

I don't give a shiny shit if the Daily Mail wants to publish my name, address or whatever. I really don't care. I now know what you should be afraid of in life and it certainly isn't JH or the Daily Mail.

But some people would care, very much.

It is an underhand, shitty thing to do and I note no other newspaper has done it.

They get elected by normal folk .

I think most news institutions would see it as 'good practice' or 'policy' to contact people they are about to publish something about, but I don't think it's illegal to do it?

What a total arse. You have my support spero.

Shit Spero - I'm so sorry. Have read and admired from afar.

Just hope you're OK.

What an utterly disgraceful thing to do...but, not (unfortunately) what you'd call unexpected.

Spero - I'd take it as far as I could.

Does anyone know what legal binds a paper would find itself in for publishing the names/personal details agaisnt the Court Order that JH did on here? I wonder when the journo's are going to start noticing he appears to be above their heads on legalities? Seeing as they are still not naming the babies, you'd think they would be more interested in why he is going unpunished legally.

I have also tried to comment on this article just to say it is unprofessional of him and what is the point of outing a mumsnetter in the article as that is not professional either.

I got a thing saying it had been submitted and was being moderated then Nothing! I think I've been moderated out of existence!

This is terrible behaviour. What an immature, backhanded, spiteful way for an MP to behave.

My local MP is lib dem. I'm happy to raise this issue with him. And Nick Clegg.

If you want MN support in that way?

think we have been, timid , only John from Birminham got through.

I'd say, yes, Sauce, and add Carpe's summary (on her blog). Or can I post a link, Carpe?

Hmmm.... I know you made details piblic Spero and i commend your commitment to transparency

But for everyone else pondering, there is this...

Information on the private life of a person may be published only if the behaviour of this person in the private sphere affects the public interest. In such cases it is necessary to make sure that such publication will not violate the interests of the third parties.

Or as Spero said.. It was an underhand shitty thing to do and no other paper has done it.

What exactly public interest was served by disclosing the RL name let alone the MN name? And no the story isn't about Spero but ... Even more reason to not disclose a RL name.

Yes Pacific post it as much as you can.

The more the synopsis gets put there the better an idea of what is important in this story gets out there.

homeschoolinitaly.blogspot.it/2013/12/hemminggate.html

kitchen

Exacly, it was gratutious.

And ... wierd.

Like they were throwing him a bone or something.

I've just voted John up - didn't know I could do that

Spero, this is shit. Sorry it's happened to you.

He really is vindictive (and so are the DM).

Will do.

The fact that only the DM has done this, and no other paper, sums the Mail up. The hack ridden rag is bereft of decency or morality.

Where is claig btw?

Oh, I am v fond of my creepy wee brackets today

Carpe, I suspect they do want to keep him sweet as he is such an excellent source of the type of stories the Mail loves.

in fact I bet the DM are funding a secret bunker somewhere full of scientists trying to clone a Katie Hopkins/John Hemming baby which can then be snatched by an evil SW.

I like claig.

Claig actually seemed to have a change of heart after cutting and pasting huge chunks of speeches from Martin Narey rather than the DM.

Bit peeved that nothing I have said to her over the years has made the slightest difference. Those 2011 threads were eerie - almost exact repeat of all the arguments made on threads in 2013. Same cast of characters as well.

yes ohmy, sums up DM mentality entirely

I want to post a couple of quotes from this re: data protection angle. Not sure if will get deleted so here is link to article. Even if you scroll to last 2 paras and decide if you want to read whole thing.

2040infolawblog.com/tag/john-hemming/