The photos of Jade on the cover of todays papers make me feel quite sad, time for the press to step back

[Kimi]

She looks very poorly in them.
I hope the press will now leave her alone with her children as from the photos I think her time is slipping away quite fast now.
I think she has achieved what she wanted now, awareness of this terrible illness and a secure financial future for her sons.

Made me think how lucky I am and how fragile life is.

I hope she gets what she needs now.

Neenz, I am not sure there was that much in yesterday's paper either TBH.

And am pretty sure there have been no new Photographs since she came back from hospital.

It seems to me like the tabloids can't wait for her to die so they can get the next big story.

The sun try and finish her off everyday.

As far as I'm concerend there was a countdown to her death, bloody papers bombarded us daily. But since the 'Hours To Live' at the begining of the week along with all the other details of her suffering, the media appear to be a bit stuck now.

there's actually a web site which is called something like 'is she dead yet'? now that's a count-down. However crap the papers are I don't think they are doing a public count-down.

The media ARE a bit stuck now because they don't have any information so they have to print a stuff 'a friend of the family' said or re-hash the info they have from genuine interviews.

If you look at the coverage you are seeing/reading objectively then it's pretty obvious that the papers don't have anything to bombard us with apart from old news!

today's daily mail story is all about the OK magazine tribute!

If the Goody family don't complain about the OK tribute then the press complaints commission woon't act. I once complained about hte way a newspaper had treated Mary Bell and received a letter saying they only investigate complaints made by the people who are being written about or relatives who are effected by the reporting.

And those of you who can't bare to read any more of it - you might want to get your moaning over with now when you hear about this? :

"Details were released yesterday that a diary detailing her battle against cancer will be published after her death.
The 27-year-old has secured a deal with HarperCollins for the book which will detail her final months and is to be entitled Forever in My Heart.
The mother-of-two sees it as a love letter to her sons Bobby, five and four-year-old Freddy, according to the publishers"

Aaargghhh!

A book deal - dear God, obviously there was going to be a ghost written book deal!! We should have anticipated this!!!

But the great thing is, you don't have to buy it if you don't want to. Infact you don't even have to read it. Same as me and jeffrey Archer!

Obviously I don't have to buy it, I have absolutely no intention of buying it, just as I have no intention of buying OK magazine. I do have an opinion about whether or not these things should be published though.

I buy OK magazine almost every week.

Georgiemama, the deleted thread to which you refer as being "rightly pulled" was started by me and most certainly didn't contain a "personal attack on two posters" as you say. I simply referred by name in my OP to two posters. One who had suggested (on this very thread) that Jade Goody's illess may be a hoax and that she was suspicious that there may be a "miracale recovery" and the other who appeared to agree with the first poster. I then gave a link back to this thread for reference so other people could see the comments for themselves. some people seemed to think that irt was as they put it "bad form" to name posters but I didn't personally attack them. I have no need or wish to attack them personally as I don't know them personally and have nothing against them personally. I was simply attacking their views and that's my preogative. People are equally free to do that to me too. This is a public forum and I dsee myself as fair game for anyone if I put my opinions out there.

So, no personal attacks were made by me on them in my view. Just highlighting what these people had said.

And I still don't understand whay that thread was deleted, there was no need for it to be. You were on it yourself and it wasn't nasty, ill natured or contentious.

When justifying her actions in deleting the thread, the woman from MH HQ said:

"Reason I deleted the thread about the deleted thread was I felt it was just restating all the stuff that had caused the other thread to be pulled, plus link to deleted thread."

She had clearly got hold of completely the wrong end of the stick because that thread didn't contain a link to a deleted thread at all. It contained a link to this thread which, as far as I can make out is still very much here. Surely these people could do us all the courtesey of getting their facts stright before arbitrarily deleting threads.

So if you're getting the wrong end of the stick Georgiemama, you're in good company with the ditsy woman at MN HQ.

So if you're getting the wrong end of the stick Georgiemama, you're in good company with the ditsy woman at MN HQ

OMG, is she not dead
i saw special Ok for her, i thought she was dead
it was some thing like that anyway, og god, im speechless.

That's the trouble with the press. You can invite them in, but you can't tell them to go away when you've had enough of them. I can't say I feel any sympathy on that front. It was a calculated decision, and I'm sure Max Clifford told them what the consequences would be.

Regarding her dying, well that's sad, but no more sad than any other person dying. I cannot for the life of me see why it is newsworthy, but then I can't see what's newsworthy about most sleb twaddle, of which this is a slightly macabre variant.

I'd rather the news was about people who matter, who've achieved stuff of interest or value, and that intrusive photos and articles were not written about anyone, because I really don't want to read them, or for people to think they should be able to read them either.

The Guardian had an article where they had tracked that poor poor lady who was locked in a cellar and abused for 24 years to her new home where she is trying to rebuild her life. Now that is really appalling. Paps camped outside someone's house who has courted them for years. A no story to me, despite the sad circumstances.

You don't get it, Gunnerbean. You've been on MN for long enough that you should by now.

If you have an issue with something someone says, you call them on it on the thread in question. You don't start a thread about them, which they might not see and therefore have no opportunity to make their own side known.

This site is a public forum, but it is moderated (very very lightly, for which I am grateful) by those "ditsy women at MNHQ" as you put it. They make the rules. Don't like the rules, no one is making you post here.

""Reason I deleted the thread about the deleted thread was I felt it was just restating all the stuff that had caused the other thread to be pulled, plus link to deleted thread.""

Also, you could do with getting your facts straight. Geraldine wasn't talking about your thread when she said that. She was talking about another thread, not about Jade Goody, which was discussing a pulled thread and linking to a saved version of it on Google docs.

It's not all about you, you know.

Mind you, as one of the named and shamed I don't mind a bit and would be happy to repeat anything I said on the other thread. Shall we see if we can get this one pulled too, so that we can stop propping up the "media circus"?

Not that I think there is one in this case (media circus, I mean). Anything that involves Max Clifford is will go exactly the way he and his client planned it.

Going back to the question 'why wouldn't you get dressed instead of wearing a hospital gown in the photographs?' question, I would guess that it is because of being on drips. As anyone else who's had more than 1 drip in their arm at a time will know, it is a complete pain in the backside to change what you're wearing, as the drip has to be stopped, capped off and replaced, with a pause in you getting your medication. Now if that drip's giving you your much-needed painkillers, it's doubly likely you would decide not to change, especially if you were feeling that ill. No-one wants to wear a hospital gown but there are times when someone is too worn down to comtemplate getting out of it. (And just because the drips aren't visible in photos, doesn't mean they aren't there tucked away...)

Fair play to you Seeker. It seems that there were a lot of people who got terribly hot under the collar on your behalf though.

As I said, all I did was to reference your views back to another active thread. I was told to take it up on that active thread (which I did) but there were still people who over-reacted to it all, including Georgiemama here who even referred to what I did as "personal attack" on the two posters I mentioned by thier screennames, jeez! As I said, I don't know anyone here personally so have no motive to attack them personally. It's all rather a bizzaire over-reation I think.

I have to say that it wouldn't bother me one jot if someone started a thread and said "Gunnerbean said blah blah blah". So what? Big deal. That sort of thing happens routinely on many other internet forums I visit. I can't see why people get into such a lather over it. If someone is being really personally offensive, threatening or abusive about another person that's one thing but just referencing their comments back to another thread in order to open up another topic for discussion...I really can't see what the problem with that is.

The trouble with this site is that there seems to be lot of unspoken conventions which people are supposed to become aware of by osmosis. As a member who only comes on in fits and starts I've obviously not spent enough "quality time" around here to familiarise myself with them all, or to be made aware of them by others.

Gunnerbean did you ever email MN HQ and ask them to explain?

No I didn't 2Shoes but maybe I should. People were actually having rather a good discussion towards the end of it and it was all rather good-natured I thought. I think most people who were on it were fairly shocked when it suddenly disappeared.

I don't want to get into the whole lamenting the demine of my deleted thread thing but I do somewhat resent the implication that it was deleted because it was started by someone looking to stir up trouble because I wasn't, honestly.

As I said, I only referenced those two named posters' comments back to another active thread in order to open up another topic for discussion I didn't attack them personally, wasn't abusive, offensive, degratory or personal. It was a simple statement of fact. I still really can't see what the problem is with what I did.

If MN has a problem with people doing what I did then I think for the avoidance of any doubt (and to help people to avoid working themselves up into a lather) they should publish an explicit instruction at the top of each topic board so that people know not to do it. Not everyone spends 22 hours out of each day posting furiously on every active thread on this site and has been a member since it started so knows the ins and outs of what's acceptable here and what's not.

yawn...don't blame the press...