Ok, in light of baysmum's posting. Can we have a show of hands for deletion of threads.

[homemama]

I can't believe I'm posting this as I don't actually agree with thread deletion other than in extreme circumstances. However, Baysmum has confirmed that Madeleine's mum is likely to be a Mnetter and if not then her close friends and family certainly are.

Whilst I would have no objection to them reading anything I have posted, I'm horrified to think that we (collectively) may cause the family any more distress either now or in the future.

Therefore, if most participants of the threads agree then perhaps MNHQ will agree also.
Thanks

I did say that the candle and prayer threads should remain so they would return to them.

yes, agree homemama. It would also be all too easy for the media to make capital of some things posted too , especially if new developments are slow in the next day or two.

Delete!

didn't add a comment on any ...but i read ...and yes delete

I am not generally one to ask for threads or posts to be deleted but did contact MNHQ earlier to request that at least the most offensive posts are removed. IMO this family will have enough to deal with (whatever the outcome) without stumbling across some of the vile comments that have been posted on those threads.

Media can say what they want whether they read it here or not. Everyone wishes the best for them and their little girl even among the other comments.

Nope.

Don't delete.

Do people really think of mumsnet purely as a place where support can be found?

This IS the media, JodieG.

Sorry, JodieGI.

Apparently it's going that way, NFK.

'Support' is as subjective as truth, beauty, and any of the other 31 flavours.

What i meant was they may be comforted by the fact that most MNers were reacting angrily to the nasty posts and saying 'don't blame the parents'. It might be nice for them to know that the vast majority were on their side and that a lot of people have taken exactly the same risk (or similar) that they did.
if certain posts are deleted they may just wonder what was in them and imagine they were worse than they actually were.

NKF - I meant the press. They will say what they like

Well NKF, I do think that's its primary function, yes.

Sides. Sides. On their sides? I don't know what you mean by sides. As if anyone has been against the parents.

If it's not written here it will be written elsewhere for all and sundry to read.

That's the world wide web.

Its primary function surely is to make money for its owners.

Wow, this place really has changed in the years I've been here.

And unfortunately, I can't say it's for the better.

NKF, just because MN makes a profit (and why not?) doesn't mean it can't be sensitive to people's feelings.

I'm new here but I've seen other message boards and they do change as people come and go.

and just because they might read it elsewhere, doesn't mean it should be here on MN too.

I've got a lot of journalist friends and i don't think any of them, when writing a story, is thinking 'how can i write this to make the most money for my boss'.

The problem is when you start to censor in the name of 'sensitivity'.

Of course not and if it's too insensitive, people may well desert it. So it's a commercial as well as an ethical call. But I don't see a consensus on what is insensitive.

Journalists don't think like that. Media owners do.