"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 ...

NO DP, that would be my DP

Chat would die off!
DailyMailCanLick - who are you? Excellent username!
Tamarto - I hadn't even thought of that and yet it happened to me when we were in the telegraph (??) about Moldies! Yes, I ageree, that's a big concern.

Why did this MNer leave btw?

LOL Mamazon!

Afternoon ladies

Not sure I like the idea of Chat being open to pinch stuff from - some people specifically post sensitive things in Chat as they know they'll vanish.

If I change to a DM hating name and they do quote me, not only will my mum know my posts but she'll also know what I think of her choice of reading material

I've done it myself Balls - maybe next time I'll call the thread 'wankstain title wankstain'?

And if "times is hard", then surely its the more salacious stuff which would be more appealing?

Even though the DM might well be the most linked to media site, it's rarely "ooh what a fabulously written piece, I really do agree with that" type of thing.

I would be happier if the MNer who is doing this would be good enough to explain the motive behind it, and what they are getting out of it (other than a lazy list of quotes for a column with a deadline).

Am not sure why I feel so irritated by this, it somehow feels like we have been betrayed from within (yes now I know I'm sounding like a complete loon )

Like this

Am now going to say something I never thought I would

Them Moldies had sense (although not by not inviting me obv )

ROFLs at Tourettes breaking out across MN. And apologises to any parents of TS sufferers...

I can sort of see why she chose that issue now as she refers to celebs (unlike the fake tan thread which was obviously a few months back and perhaps the initial draft for the format) but the article does seem clumsily handled as if written in haste (sorry). Perhaps the inaccurate attribution of the op was a deliberate attempt to disguise. However the thread could have been referred to in less direct and more anonymous ways which would make it less traceable and the topic be more generalised with reference to other workplace threads. Having said that I suspect the writer would be sensitive to issues such as SN , Relationship scenarios etc and wodul nto intend to out anyone.

Daily Mail readers prefer it....

That writer might be sensitive, but what happens if she moves on and the next person is asked to make things a bit racier? The precendent's already been set - what would we do then?

Yes Lizs but with the one today-

isn't the employer going to read the story? fair chance I would guess.

Would I want that to happen if it were me? Goodness no, I'd want a few weeks to think about it.

Daily Mail journos prefer it...

so, who's the mner who writes this column then? screen name please/1

so, who's the mner who writes this column then? screen name please/1

Next week's column has already as good as written itself hasn't it?

If I'd been the employer who'd told that MNer she was being let go, there's no way I wouldn't have recognised myself. The employer in question would then be able to learn the tactics that other MNers had advised the OP of that thread on. Tisn't fair!

Or can we set up an irresistable thread, but make sure everyone's got an unquotable name? [evil]

hmm not sure that would transfer well. Mumsnetters suffer masse panic about the shame of being quoted in this paper!

Agree with you , and it could have repercussions for op if it is traced which is why it could ahve been referred to less directly and put into a wider context ratehr than verbatim. Wouldn't it be ironic if the writer were a m ?

oh, i see mamazon...you think DM readers are thick and a bit chavtastic....rather unkind dont you think.....how many DM readers have you met?

of course you are all so intelligent, witty, and accepting...i keep forgetting.

I know it's already been said but it makes me really cross that someone who has been a mumsnetter is now using hte site for their own professional gain and didn't even have the courtesy to talk to mnhq about it. That doesn's sound like good egg behaviour to me

I hate the Daily Mail. I never click on links to it as I don't want to be counted in their circulation statistics and I can't se how a forum which provides support for women can benefit from an association with a paper that is so violently misogynistic (and racist and homophobic and all the rest of it)

right from today onwards we need to not post anything even slightly appealing. then tomorrow start a realy juicy thread about something utterl;y controvercial and all post with our DM hating names.

oh they wouldn't know what to do would they