Wasn't there a general consensus that we were going to try and steer clear of upsetting news stories?

[DingdongMegaLegsonhigh]

OK - I'll admit I'm feeling particularly sensitive today but there are currently two really upsetting thread titles in active convos. Didn't post on either as a) I didn't want to read them and b)it would have put them back up the top

I've got to be honest MissMistletoe, I feel a bit sorry for you because it sounds like you have had a miserable time on MN so far.

First the pets Christmas present threads, now this. I think you have been very unfortunate, and if you do stick around, it won't always be this bad.

I love MN because it does have the sarcasm, sense of humour and general outrage at all kinds of things that I find missing in most of normal mum's society.

But I think you have inadvertently walked into an elephant trap of an issue that had already rumbled for a while.

I don't have a problem with them being discussed either, for more clarification. I've posted news stories myself fgs!

PSH, go on then, how do I access In The News, except ones with tabloid headlines on MN?

Yes, but if there is a particular thread that you want to avoid becuase it is that upsetting, then you end up avoiding that entire topic for a day or so while it drops off. I know that most people use Active convos, but if people are that upset , then there are alternatives which don't result in you driving every newcomer off the board.

If you know that it upsets you and you keep looking at active convos (and lets face it some of the complainants have even been keeping it in active convos) then I can't see that you can keep blaming the OP. If you think that a particular thread is that offensive, then you can report it and it will be removed.

Clearly every newcomer to MN doesn't feel driven away, PSH, or there would be nobody here

Nice name you have there.

Oh come on, it's not that difficult for people to simply be considerate when posting thread titles. I mean would you walk into a crowded bar shouting that headling?? Would you even start a conversation amongst friends with that exact phrase? That's what a thread title should be - it's the opening statement of a conversation. I bet you'd actually start a conversation something like "I read something really disturbing/upsetting today..." od along those lines anyway.

Reporting the thread may get it deleted but that would then result in accusations of "stiffling discussion" etc. Far better to simply have the common sense to use a less, oh I don't know, less graphic? headline.

Personally I don't have a problem with thread titles being posted as posters see fit, within the bounds of decency. Quite shocked imo that people suggested on the 8 year old thread that they say Assault instead of rape/ pardon? Just downgrade what happened to that poor lad to protect othewr people's sensitivities? We all have children here, we all imagine our children in that place but that's just part of being parent in a rather cruel world.

FWIW I think MN should not be in any way restrictive; I didn't join all those years ago for happy threads alone. Plus I seem to remember free speech being an issue MN is strong about?

rather scared actually by the notion of a consensus we should all abide by- not what this place has been about.

Yes, but in the din that is MN that could be anything from "X in Corrie is going to be written out", through to the stuff of your worst nightmares. You'd end up clicking on it to see which it was.

And again - where does it stop - there are upsetting titles in other topics too - even tonight.

Anyway - just pointing out that there are options. You don't have to use them.

Surely as adults we should know when clicking on a thread would put us at risk mentally?

For a while ages back people were putting WARNING- Graphic or someuch before the more graphic threads, why can't we revert to that?

This thread is truly repulsive [disgust emoticon]

"Yes, but in the din that is MN that could be anything from "X in Corrie is going to be written out", through to the stuff of your worst nightmares. You'd end up clicking on it to see which it was"

Yes and then you wouldn't click again would you?? That's the whole point.

Peachy, I don't think these things shouldn't be discussed. My standpoint is that the thread title should be less graphic. The contents of a thread are another matter.

What, all of it HMC? That's very fair and equable of you

I did realise that DCDO. I don't have a problem with the titles though, changing Rape for Assault etc just seem like silly semantics to me. It somehow implies that a less traumatic incident occurred and smacks of ostrich syndrome.

Oh come on - this is getting more and more obtuse. Soupdragon is spot on - you wouldnt go shouting the phrase "8 year old boy raped." over and over and over again.

Freedom of speech is important. Absolutely it is. However, how appropriate would it be to walk down the street and comment along the way "Look at your lovely DD, I was raped when I was her age, watch her carefully, wont you?"

Would you? Really? Is it in the interests of those people? Isnt it much nicer to keep these kind of thoughts tempered and just say "Isn't your DD lovely, take care of her"?

I don't gop to the pub or into the street for general discussion purposes. This is a discussion forum.

In other words, how hard would it be to limit a thread title to say simply "Shocking attack on young boy" and let people decide for themselves if they want to know the details of it.

Freedom of speech - great. Freedom of information - fantastic.

Ram it down peoples throats or slap it in their face - NO.

I agree HMC, but simply because I cannot understand why people cannot post with consideration to others on such sensitive matters. I dont know how people can argue this.

It IS a discussion forum.

Does it require thread titles to be so graphic?
If it does - why does it? What good does it do? What purpose does it serve?

It doesn't require it no

But I think its rather pointless to jump so heavily onto people for titkles as well

Titles don't change meanings at all. And frankly i think people should be a little bit more concerned for that little lad or whatever thread it happens to be, than themselves.

Who says they arent concerned?

That is a totally different matter altogether.

I'm not sure it is TBH, but anyway I am not sure how a consensus will work- new members come every day, are we to yell at them if they transgress? very welcoming that would be!

We can't tell other people what to post. I don't think I have posted any genuinely upsetting thread titles but short of banning people which is horribly totalitarian approach we just have to rely on peoples judgement and let it lie.

would it be a crackers idea to have a box on 'in the news' asking for consideration? or is that just getting too nannyish, d'you think?

Sorry - but this is simply a matter of common decency and consideration IMVHO. If people cant see that, well there's not alot anyone can do, is there?

You know, we all have our sensitivities.

Mine is seeing certain words, crude words, seen in this thread actually - would it be too much trouble to use other adjectives to get your point across?

I mean, here I am entering a thread with an inocuous title but am met with, imho, vile language that I'd rather not see and was not expecting to see. Maybe posters who use that language do so because they are 'scandal lovers' and like to 'get their rocks off' by shocking people?

Life's a two way street you know.