Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

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

327 replies

DingdongMegaLegsonhigh · 06/12/2006 19:58

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

OP posts:
Skribble · 06/12/2006 23:07

Splat splat splat, I am off to make soup with my veg, much better use.

tortoiseBells · 06/12/2006 23:07

thread censorship here

MerryChristmasfromQV · 06/12/2006 23:09

And if there was a debate to be had Jools et al - why on earth not say something like "What was 'this' 8 year old boy doing out in the dark?"

"8 year old boy raped" is hardly inviting "debate" is it?

dara · 06/12/2006 23:09

and it does surprise me that people who claim to be so much more sensitive and restrained that other people don't hold back on the abuse themselves

whensantagotstuckupAITCHimney · 06/12/2006 23:09

in that respect i do agree with you dara, i do think that the OP in this instance was approximately designed to evoke discussion of how late children should be allowed out.
a thread title such as 'how late are your five-year-olds allowed out? Warning, based on upsetting news story' would therefore have been better.

tortoiseBells · 06/12/2006 23:10

and here

I think it's only fair to be careful with thread titles.

CountTo10LordsaLeaping · 06/12/2006 23:10

So basically as well as trying to make people be more sensitive with how they position their thread title, they should also only start the thread in the first place if you think it has some purpose to it? Regardless of what they might feel/want/need? I thought this was an open public forum? If you don't like the nature of the thread, don't post on it. Valid argument re the titles thing but you can't start laying down appropriate formats and subjects for threads that's just ridiculous!!

ScummyMummy · 06/12/2006 23:10

Thing is, we have a mumsnet police force already- they are Justine and Carrie and co. So unless you are among their number being controlling about who posts what will often just put people's backs up, ime. I think the only thing you can do is to vote with your mouse click- avoid/ignore (if you feel particularly personally sensitive or antipathetic towards a thread) or report (if you think your sensitivity does or should reflect a general trend on the boards.)

Glitterygookwithchocsonthetree · 06/12/2006 23:10

Please tell me this furore over thread titles is a fecking joke!!

Do you have nothing else to worry about?!

SantaGotStuckUpTheGreensleeve · 06/12/2006 23:11

"abuse" has quite a specific meaning, dara. It can't be stretched to cover any statement that you don't like because you see yourself in it.

SnafuOutOfHiding · 06/12/2006 23:11

Oh, rubbish (she said, pleasantly )

All people are saying is please think twice before posting graphic thread titles about random unpleasant stuff from your local newspaper for no discernable reason.

It is not about censorship, fgs, it is about having a bit of consideration, intelligence and integrity.

MistleToo · 06/12/2006 23:12

who on those news threads 'revels' in them - I find this statement most odd. How on earth do you know what is behind another person's post?

As to whether a story is newsworthy - go look in the topic - there are hundreds of unnewsworthy threads with hundred of posts on them.

MerryChristmasfromQV · 06/12/2006 23:12

I never said that dara - dont put words in my mouth.

I simply replied to mummydears assertion that it was pertinent because it was local to her/she had prior knowledge of the incident.

Ditto that to mummydears.

Glitterygookwithchocsonthetree · 06/12/2006 23:13

Just the sight of some posters' names is enough to make me want to barf. Should I ask that I can exlude any of their posts from active convos in order to protect my delicate constitution?

Original poster
DingdongMegaLegsonhigh · 06/12/2006 23:13

Definately not a joke Glittery and yes I've got stuff to worry about which is why I came on MN tonight.

OP posts:
SantaGotStuckUpTheGreensleeve · 06/12/2006 23:14

Hmmm, the problem with that, GDG, is that you would have to be up front about who they are - and would that not constitute a personal attack?

MistleToo · 06/12/2006 23:14

I know when I post a news story I tend to cut and paste the headline (usually from the BBC), maybe that's what the OP did???

ScummyMummy · 06/12/2006 23:15

lol, gdg. I want a Without ScummyMummy button added forthwith so that any hidden enemies I have feel happier.

whensantagotstuckupAITCHimney · 06/12/2006 23:16

hey! as an aside, can anyone remember what i wrote further down that was worthy of deletion? i thought i was being kinda sensible generally... it's not far down, would you look?
or did i hit the keyboard in error and post something weird by mistake?

SnafuOutOfHiding · 06/12/2006 23:16

If I did that, GDG, I'd have no-one left

MerryChristmasfromQV · 06/12/2006 23:16

BBC arent always right either though.....remember the "baby dies after breastfeed" fiasco

oh AND the BBC retracted that title IIRC

MistleToo · 06/12/2006 23:17

oh God QV I knew the BBC wouldn't be a suitable source

whensantagotstuckupAITCHimney · 06/12/2006 23:18

oooh, i remember what it was now. is 'obtuse' abuse? okay, my sincere apologise to the person concerned if i upset them.

SnafuOutOfHiding · 06/12/2006 23:18

Crikey, is calling someone obtuse now worthy of deletion? Where's SWMNBN when you need her?

mummydear · 06/12/2006 23:19

I sa w your posting - although directed at me , didn't seem it to be suitabel for deletion -- have seen worse on here tonight - with offensive language .