"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 ...

I do think it's pretty crap that this stoopid Mail column is going ahead. It's not on.

SM..,....what's happened..?

Do you recon anyone's actually emailed the mail about the column and it's implications??

I have concerns that now the door is open for any old paper/columnist to raid MN and quote us and then add their own comment with no place for us to make further coment TBH

In fact, we could be quoted (erroniously as history will show) and slagged off without even knowing about it in the daily press....
ffs, that is not why i joined here and i'm really not impressed

The door has always been open for that to happen though.

Yeah, and some selfish tosspot decided to step through it, without a thought to what she was doing. What's the encore?

oopsagain.....this is an open forum...open to all...you are anon..

why are you bothered.?

It's my time, I willingly give my time to support the parents on this site, not to line some newspaper/jouros pockets.

DP MN this week column erroneous attributions and much consternation

huge debate about intellectual property and copyright
some right that's it im offsky
debate about appropriateness of MN and dm print liaison
cracking thread.thought provoking

We are all anon on here but sometimes that situation one posts about makes them idnetifyable.

Ie my dh hit me and then he kicked the dog and then he crashed the car- type posts. On here that person is anon and if they choose to say nothing to anyone in RL then they talk about it here and get some support.

And then somebody takes that post and puts it into a ladmag and sudedenly the situation idnetifies the person posting to a reader...

and then the previosu,posts of the psoter and the subsequent posts get read...
need i go on#?

People felt (niavely) that if they posted on here that the target audience was less likely to make them identifiable thru their situation - but put that into another place- a magazine, a paper and the audience changes.

I can't really exaplin any further- but it you wish so hard to miss the point, so be it.

mucho thanko sm

was on here earlier for 10 minutes..i opened my big mouth (as usual) and now have to write a 300 word witty review of eastenders....

it was quite light harted when i left..

What about the username that is read in a newspaper, is read, the reader then looks up all the posts by that member and fills in the blanks. We don't give info that's specific to who we are/where we are/what we do but it's all here, not one one thread but over time we give snippets of our true self. What's to prevent a nutter etc sticking it all together?

I think the question is not whether Justine is going to allow this or not, but what ground rules she should lay down in return for giving her blessing.
FWIW I think these should include:
Not choosing threads from certain specified topics - not only the obviously sensitive ones but, for example, relationships and lone parents where people are posting in a state of fragility.
Informing Mumsnet which thread will be used so that they can ask permission from anyone who may have posted potentially identifiable information.
Considering changing usernames in certain circumstances.
Checking their sodding copy for egregious errors before printing. (I used to work on a subs desk and I would have been fucking slaughtered by my editor if I hadn't logged onto Mumsnet and checked the copy given to me by the fuckwit reporter tallied with what was posted online.)

ok....so a nutter sticks it all together - then what?

Anyone joining please include your username so we know who you are...]

tha actual article is great- it says you can't be firsed for being pregnant.
Which is a very helpful thing to say, obviusly.

But the fact that MN agreed that the DM could use it is the point tbh.

Our posts can end up anywhere in the national press, quoted by anyone and then commented on unilaterally by them without you knowing nor having and comeback on the comments.

is that what we signed up for?

and the posts i requested to be deleted have gone- so thanks to Mn for that!

If you can produce a TV review that matches up to Nancy Banks-Smith I'll eat my Sunday bonnet DP.

oopsagain;....ikwym, which is why you have to be careful about giving too much away on here....i hardly ever mention my dh or dc, never give too much away about my private life.....(i'm not really a raving tory daft punk, i'm actually a highly intelligent communist)

Who knows Nancy. The Daily Mail attracts a different reader to MN. It's a sexist newspaper, women are devalued, the skinny models prove this. When you associate a site with that crap you're asking for problems.

Cor, you kept that well hidden DP

A highly intelligent communist DP? All I can say is your cover is absobloodylutely brilliant.

The journo could have written the same things but without using MN, it's sloppy, lazy journalism, purly cut and paste from a web site.

But they won't know YOU will they?

why thank you LGP.....i am also James Bond...but don't tell anyone.

winks at rindercella