Ok so am back - sorry for absence vonsudenfed - took me old mam out to lunch, but I should no by now that you should never post on a thread like this and leave (although I do just have to pop out again in a min to go blackberry picking so apologies in advance but I'll be back later on.)
Anyway this is a very interesting and pertinent discussion. Thanks to all for their contributions.
A few things to clarify. First there is certainly no ill-will between the journalist writing this item and MN - quite the contrary. Yes she was cross with us at one point a few years back for some deleting I did during quite a heated discussion and left quite publicly but she returned pretty swiftly with a new name and has been around a lot since. So there is no reason to believe she has anything but honourable intentions re the column. She has contributed immensely to MN over the years.
She has also confirmed that no scenarios should be identifiable in real life from the
column (which obviously isn't the case with Mumsnet and our friend Google!). And said she/DM would remove any clearly idenifying facts (eg professions, specific details).
Second, as has been pointed out by Rusty, we cannot stop things being reproduced from here under the Fair Use laws. That does not mean folks can reproduce great tracts in the form of a book (only we can do that ) but it does mean you can be quoted and there's nothing we can do to stop it. (Of course we always hope you'll be quoted properly and not misquoted but sadly it doesn't always happen). We do obviously all have nicknames and allow unlimited namechanges so that anyone who's worried about being identified to friends and family (or others) can cover their tracks.
We always advise that you shouldn't put things on here that identify you and that you wouldn't want to be available to the wider world. Mumsnet is an open forum, searchable on Google - the audience therefore is considerably bigger than the Daily Mail's and everything you write is out there for public consumption. It's very easy to think of MN as club of sympathetic, likeminded folk - which in many ways it is - but Google isn't and if you put things on MN they are, quite simply accessible to every Tom, Dick and disgusted DM reader of Tunbridge Wells.
Had the Mail come to us and asked about this particular venture we would have had somewhat mixed feelings and would have undoubtedly run it by Mumsnetters first. Tbh though some of that's because it's the Mail, rather than the concept of MN being quoted, as we share some of your concerns about association with a paper that seems to contain so much anti-woman stuff.
We do though run a free site here. We turn down more advertising than we take and we have no money left over after running costs for publicity/advertising. We need to keep attracting folk to the site to keep it viable. Ask yourself how you found Mumsnet and many of you will have come via some kind of newspaper article or coverage.
Plus we genuinely believe the advice and support available here should be available to as many folk as possible.
However, we accept all the very valid points about the sensitive nature of some of the information posted here. Tech is currently working on private groups to be set up around particular subject areas/communities - eg SN, bereavement, miscarriage, lone parents etc
These areas will be be password protected and should be ready for use in a couple of months. If they work out hopefully it will suit better some of you who feel uncomfortable about posting on a public forum but still allow to MN. We'll keep you posted on our progress.
Do, of course, continue to let us know your thoughts.