"on MN this week" in the Daily Mail

[StealthBearWipesBumOnDailyMail]

Thread no 2

Heathen - if there's one thing that these epic threads have taught anyone, it's surely that that could happen.

Every single feature on anything these days includes a "what they're saying about it on the web" sidebar

And I promised myself I wouldn't get embroiled in this.

Badgersarse - because it is not what we signed up for, as has been said if the prospect of a regular column in the DM on any subject using anything at all from the site had been one of the things we knew was a possibility when we started out then we would all (or most) have posted very differently.

MentalHealth would probably not exist as a topic for a start - the discussions on abusive relatiosnhips and so on, people are happy to discuss things in an open forum but that does not automatically equate to being happy to have there words produced in print by anyone who chooses to.

This is the post that will get deleted, without the prev name of the journalist..

In the Mn of the future- as I see it, there are no reassurances that any of your posts will be respected and not given to/taken by any agent sn used for their own ends.

It's chicken feed talking about stuff follwoing you round from one board to another.... this will be in any magazine or newspaper you cna think of that may think they have soemthing to say.

the DM/LH is the tip of an iceberg
MN feel they have a relationship with her and hope that the DM won't request her to raid SN boards- and maybe she'll be put in a very difficult position of they do...
but there is really nothing to stop that.

i, for one actually feel sorry for her- she's now in a horrible palce, which, being humna like the rest of us- didn't occur to her at the time of writing the article.

i just think you're wrong about that, nancy. i think that if the piece is to continue then it will get more salacious, be pegged to more 'heart-breaking' stories, and the ed will look for more colour in the OP, which will identify people to their friends. if she's going to do a generic 'i lost my job' thing then she might as well make it up.

i've written things under nom de plumes and my friends have spotted it as me just from a turn of phrase. hence why i think you're completely mistaken.

hah. noms de plume.

WHY ARE PEOPLE cROSS ABOUT THIS

have fun, oops. and you're right of course.

Aitch - well, let's see if it happens. I don't think that's the intention of the column - they already have two other new columns that are more for that.

because it's a bit shitty to nick stuff without telling mnhq or paying them or allowing them to say 'er, no, doesn't fit in with our marketing plan, thanks', it's a bit shitty to mis-attribute names and it's potentially a bit close to the bone if the OP in future is a colourful one because their friends and family might identify them. or their enemies, say crazy ladies from school or something?

BECAUSE I HATE SEEING MY NAME, RL OR NOT IN PRINT, WHETHER YOU DO OTR NOT DOES NOT MEAN WE ALL FEEL THE SAME

BECAUSE I (AND MANY OTHERS JUDGING BY MY EMAIKL TODAY) NO LONGER FEEL SN IS A SAFE ENOUGH PLACE TO DISCUSS OUR ISSUES

BECAUSE MN ALWAYS FELT LIKE SOMEWHERE THAT WAS JUST THAT BIT HIGHER MORALLY THAN MOST OTHER PLACES AND WE NOW REALISE THAT HAS CHANGED, FOR GOOD BUSINESS REASONS NO DOUBT AND THROUGH NECESSITY, BUT STILL IT HAS

Sorry BA, your caps

Oh and because it is exceptionally likely given her background that said Journo is a MN 'friend' who has my RL email and suchlike as we share certain elements but heck I don't actually know.

(and what Aitch says natch, I of course am far more self centred but then I can be, seeing as nobody knows me any more)

I understand that she doesn't want her privacy compromised and apologise for linking her name and her old posting name. But, the thing is, she is compromising other people's privacy. That's the bit I just don't get. I rarely get embroiled with these things on mumsnet, but it is just so so wrong, thoughtless, selfish of her to put other people out there in the DM without their consent - regardless of hte legalities of it, it is just not on. And it does upset me more because she was someone who I personally really liked, trusted and woudl never have thought would use the community that is mnet for her own financial gain, which is what it boils down to

Badgers - TBH you are writing from a fairly safe position having had all your posts deleted already, some of us are not so lucky, in fact MNHQ have even managed to not delete posts they had previously agreed to with no reason or explanation so I suspect most of us are stuck with the situation like it or not.

I'm not sure badger, it's not much of a story really.

sorry if this has been mentioned but why have all posts with the poster's previous posting name been deleted? I didn't think it was a secret??Would name change to include her name but I think I'd get my hands slapped by MNHQ

Aitch's point about people being spotted from a turn of phrase is spot on. I once recognised a close friends mother writing about her situation in the Guardian private lives letter thingy not just because of her situation (which was a depressingly generic story) but because of a particular phrase she used

because some of us, have already been identified from a scenario by crazy ladies at school or equivalent.
So, ok, we became more savvy, private, changed names, gave less detail, but we have NO control over posts which might bee years old, coming out of the woodworm to bite us in the arse, badger.

This is getting completely blown out of proportion, and some of you are getting hysterical.
Your posts have never been "safe" you are posting on the Internet.

sure, nancy. i'm inclined also to agree with you that they might just let this one slide if MNHQ challenge them legally. it's not worth the hassle.

But BA if the subject had been one of your threads from last summer you might have thought differently. Noone really knows what agenda the DM may have in running this column, it may well change on a weekly topical basis and noone at MNHQ apparently had any control over this. It is up to the discretion of the writer and the DM editorial team .

did anyone actually see the column in the print edition rather than online? I didn't and just wondering how it looked.

what mn says this week:

"what would you do if one of the school governors was bitching about people online?"

for example.

One thing I was wondering about is whether the entire MN archive is really worth keeping?

What are the benefits of keeping posts that are - say - more than a couple of years old, vs all the risks? I know someone could come on and find a very similar situation and it might help; but generally they do this by asking on the relevant bit of the board.

People who have been around for a while then know each other's backstory, but that isn't around and available for every deranged stalker/DM journalist/ family member.

In any case, half of it doesn't make sense any more without Cod's posts; it will make even less sense with Ms Leah Hardy's removed.

and oh, I do find it ironic that she now wants her old posts deleted to protect her privay. Does she perhaps now understand just a little bit what everyone is going on about. I know she ain't ever going to turn up her to be daisyed, but I do wish she would at least give MN a statement, saying what she thought would happen, why on earth she thought it was a good idea, and why her privacy is more important than other people's (FWIW, she would not have a leg to stand on in court, because she has willingly displayed her own private life all over the papers in exchange for cash).

Anyone who has a problem with safety issues should have the sense to not give too much away on here. If you can't stop youself from chatting away about your private life to random strangers....get off the internet.