"on mumsnet this week" in the Mail. Is this a new thing

[jujumaman]

Came across this this morning when I should have been working

Is this a new weekly rip-off by the Mail? Or has it been going on for months and I'm behind the times as usual

I'm not quite as virulently anti the Mail as mnetters, find it silly rather than the end of civilisation as we know it. But still ...

Sorry phone rang

by ours I mean mine and a few others obv

Nancy, if you read the original thread (which took me about 2 minutes to find) it's clear the employer sacked her following a health scare at her booking in apt, which he was alerted about. The poster then got a call from said employer sacking her.

The circumstances are identical to the ones outlined in the Mail article and it only happened last week.

You wouldn't have to be Einstein to work out if this was your employee, and it would take you 2 minutes to find the original thread, her real username and trace all her other posts.

MN is a run for profit business.our posts are economic commodity

it isnt an organic co-operative therapeutic not for profit commune

MorningPaper - you are completely right. I admit to reading the DM but the story about Kate Moss today made me ....its so disgusting to completely over analyse for their looks.....and imo she still looks great. She is just not 19 any more ffs!!

There are apparently 800,000 unique members of Mumsnet. How about they all pay £10 per annum to Mumsnet. If I'm not mistaken that's £8Million . We then don't need to have any advertising. Discount partners will still want to be partners for the numbers involved. It will be a nice clean site for whatever we want it to be. Or better still let's have a sliding scale. Those with a family income of more than £100,000 per annum pay £50 and those with a family income of above £50,000 per annum pay £20 and those with an income under £15,000 per annum pay £10 or nothing if they feel unable to afford it. Most mumsnetters are decent sorts, I think it would work.

People already pay via the CAT facility swedes.

exactly, stayfrosty. In the mumsnet guides, my name (and to an extent, persona) is connected with bubble mixture, not anal fissures caused by bumsex with a large marrow.

disclaimer: Neither of those statements is neccessarilty true.

Peacny - you're right. I really can't get my head around the security issues people seem to be anticipating, and I am super cautious about protecting my identity.

We are talking about 1 in a million chances here.

"By scottishmummy on Thu 13-Aug-09 20:19:35
MN is a run for profit business.our posts are economic commodity

it isnt an organic co-operative therapeutic not for profit commune"

Yes, but the reason MN is successful is because people post openly and freely about their personal experiences - that's what makes it valuable and addictive reading.

If people are afraid to post real scenarios because they might end up in the Mail, then MN will suffer.

Or if someone loses their job or suffers domestic violence as a result of this column then MN might be legally in the right, but their moral position will be shot.

That's not good business either. Business is about more than £sd. It's about maintaining a moral stance your consumers want to identify with. I very much do NOT identify with MNHQ allowing someone's painful personal problem to be hijacked by the Daily Mail.

I agree MNGuides and DM are different media but the precedent has been set.posts reproducible for profit to an external source

to paraphrase Roy Walker - it's right, but it's not good...

You just won't let it lie Swedes will you

For heavens sake, it's not about a legal precedent Scottishmummy! No-one is questioning whether MN have the legal right to sell our posts to whoever they want (well, I'm not questioning that).

What I'm questioning is whether it's morally right and whether MNHQ are doing themselves more harm than good with this column.

How many quotes were attributed to the wrong person in the MN guides?

tamarto - actually the wrong posts thing doesn't worry me.

If my nick is wrongly linked to a problem in the mail then I wouldn't be delighted, but at the end of the day, no harm really done.

However if my nick is linked to my real life problem which I have also discussed with my RL friends and boss, then that's me and all my previous posts effectively outed for good.

To use this week's column as an example, the person in the shit over this won't be thunderduck - it will be the real op.

abxolutely tyv

I've been in the position of the lady on that thread- many years ago (no repercussions possible,long movedaway) dh wassacked for being a 'cat person and I like dog peoplr'

Like the poaster I wasw pg, albeit 38 weeks, and although we won the tribunal we had by then lost our home and continued to receive threats from ex boss

I posted foradvice then and I wouldhave been mortified tosee it in the dm

BTW - has anyone told Thunderduck she's supposed to be pregnant?

MN Guides are a bit like having your breasts fondled by Justine, without express permission. The Daily Mail thing is more like Justine ordering you to drink the Rohyphnol-laced drink, so she can get on and fuck you with a marrow.

did wonder that,and whether her MIL has started knitting yet.....

I don't think subscriptions will be the answer - Pandora's box is already open ...

Oh Swedes, if only the DM would print that

ROFL @ Swedes!!

economic clout and success of MN is its hits. if people do not like they can cease posting,go elsewhere.thus demonstrating unhappiness and potentially reducing number of hits

the advertising revenue is presumably based upon actual/potential audience

my point is, MN is a for profit business not an altruistic support network.sometimes people do things for the business. i know they decline formula and other companies they dislike as Advertisers. don't know the background to this liaison. sure it will get clarified

i can genuinely see why this has caused great consternation.i agree to an extent, but coming and alluding MN is a safe space doesn't hold water.it isn't a safe space - it is public