"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 ...

Yes, some furniture store (I think it was Woolworths), created a little girl's bedroom furniture range, called Lolita!! There was uproar on here!! It was withdrawn as inappropriate very quickly.

Well, have read thread and article in question. I'm not happy about it.

To repeat myself from somewhere else...I joined MN in a bit of distress, didn't post as I managed to find one (of many) threads about the same thing. When I signed up, I didn't fully read the terms and conditions, was not aware of the 'fair use' policy etc... How many other people don't read it?

Will watch with interest. Name changed at the ready, profile gone.

Lolita bed

Oops we asked the writer whether the Mail was planning to make it a regular thing. It did feel odd that they didn't ask us first (maybe they knew it might fail at that stage) but it didn't really enter my mind to challenge/oppose it because the way we see it, everything you write is in the public domain - so pretty much out there for quoting.

We also - being honest - thought it good publicity. A Mumsnetter picking out interesting MN threads is really on balance quite a good way of portraying MN - one would expect some sensitivity and understanding. If you're going to be in the Mail (which has an enormous readership then this is probably the best way to be in it).

But having said all that we do accept that many folk would rather chew off their own arm than have anything to do with the DM. And we hear what you all say about the association so we'll certainly think about what we can do to ensure people don't get hurt.

Another brandy Justine? Double?

I do rather like the idea that 90% of posters change their posting names to something DM-related and so the whole column idea just sort of withers, though. It's more in the spirit of the Internet, somehow.

That's half a bottle now Fluffy. Thanks!

Good point Frosty.

Here you go Justine. Don't drink it all at once. You need my philosophy, "it could be worse". Works for me, I have MS/no kiddy tooth brush/didn't win the dolphin holiday/blah blah but hey, it could be worse!! It's therapeutic you know.

Wozzah? Night all s'ya in ze mornin

It will all be better in the morning Justine. Remember, it could be worse, it could have been in the Sun.

Lenin - I would have thought it could easily be argued that information about employment law was in the public interest. I also can't see how the posters privacy has been compromised.

I also think it's silly for people to suggest that Thuderduck writes to the editor and complains.

Well I am going to write even if it is silly.
How difficult is it to check such a simple fact as the name of the OP?

Well, if the journo had have done her work properly then Thunder wouldn't have to complain!! Doh!!
Plagerism isn't reporting now is it!

Besides I think it's lazy journalism, and I'm just generally not happy with them publishing this.

Thunderduck, on a personal level I understand your upset.

But onn a practical level - they used 'Thunderduck' instead of 'yabbadabbahdo' or whatever the op was called.

fluffy - it isn't plagiarism. That's when you steal somebody's work and attempt to pass it off as your own.

Lenin's right - they won't care. I doubt you'll get a reply.