"on MN this week" in the Daily Mail

[StealthBearWipesBumOnDailyMail]

Thread no 2

This all sucks. A lot of my disscussions on here have been about the certain type of school system that we are not allowed to mention now for fear of them sueing MN (although it would never work, we all just chat about our RL experiences!). But we can't do that now because of threats from the HQ of this education system. Now people feel compromised on the SN forum because of the bloody Daily Mail of all things.

It is sad because MN is surely for talking freely about topics that matter to us in the course of parenting, but now it seems not??? Or at least it makes us feel far less secure about doing so.

I wondered that von; in that advice given 3 years ago, on say, weaning, is now hopelessly out of date anyway. How much to people actually bother to search archives?
(Given the frequency of ''what can I put in my child's lunchbox'' threads etc, i'd say people don't bother searching anymore.)

As someone in a very closely related industry, what I take exception to is the fact that this was printed without the express permission or knowledge of Justine and MN. As I understand it, the copyright holder (Justine) does need to give consent for any content to be re-used via a written permission. This didn't happen.

We all know when we sign up to MN we give permission for our text to be reused by MN - that's part of the T & Cs in the same way it is on any forum. However, none of us gave permission for a journo to come on and quote us word for word. If she had given Justine a call, she could have asked the MNetters in question whether they minded. SDon't you think that would have been far more appropriate?

Doubtless the journo knows how everyone would have felt if she had asked MN which is why she didn't. Can you imagine anyone who posts anything on here at a time when they feel really raw saying 'Oh yeah, of course I don't mind it being printed in a national newspaper.'?

TBH, it wouldn't be so bad if she had summarised what was said and NOT put posters names on. That way at least people couldn't come on here and do a search for that person's posting history. i.e. if she had said 'One mumsnetter pointed out...' that would sit more comfortably with me.

And as for people saying journos have to eat, well yes they do, but they also have a responsibility to respect copyright law and peoples' privacy. If one of us had wanted to talk about the issues in the article in the national press and the paper had called and asked for an interview that would be OK, but the point is none of us did. Perhaps we should look up this MNetter's history and do an article about her life for a national paper. Woudl she feel so comfortable about it then?

Woodward, is that a namechange or are you just trying to start a fight? If your questions are genuine then just read the thread, the answers are here again and again... and again... and if you need clarification feel free to look on the other thread,they are there ad-infintum too.

WoodwardandBernstein - if the situation we're talking about is someone battling depression at 3am, it's a bit harsh if we have to say, "don't come looking to us for support as you could be all over the DM tomorrow. Fuck off and talk to a RL friend. Oh, you don't have any? Too bad then."
And we shouldn't have to.

That is why you use anonymous posting names, how would anyone Reading the daily mail recognize the posters concerned? the thread she used can apply to hundreds of women.

Just catching up with this...

so MNHQ have removed all posts mentioning the journalist's MN nickname? Does anyone else get the irony of that? Fucking unbelievable

So said journalist can reveal comments posted by MNers and misattribute their nicknames to them in a national newspaper, but her MN identity is to be kept a secret? Fucking unbelievable.

badgersarse- as someone who has suffered personally from people linking your online and real life personas- surely you can see why people are a little upset about this?

You weren't too happy to see your name in type, so can't see why you'd be happy for it to appear in print.

I find it ironic she wants any mention of her old posting name removed
So her privacy's OK then??

Like I said, read the thread, the hows and whys have been done to death Woodward.

ahola - I planned to do a similar name change but I think you will get a ticking off

x post with Rindercella
There are a lot of double standards going on here!

Actually BA, I have seen you have little stamoy fits when people have linked you new posting names with your old one, never mind actually outed you and your RL information so I think you are being a bit, erm.... unfair with your attitude here.

stamoy = stampy

'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'
where I come from (Planet Highground ) there are two anmes for that: charitable, ironic..... not so charitable- a fucking pisstake. Choose your own angle.

Speaking of charity - maybe she should be asked to donate her fee as compensation for the distress she's caused...?

ahola - love your name!

Though perhaps something more along the lines of F*O**Ahola may be more appropriate

BTW would love to see posts over 2 years being removed. With som much of the official guidance changing so regularly, I think that would be a very positive thing to do.

Also, although I would strongly object to anything I had posted being lifted and reprinted from the last 2 years, to have something reprinted from such a loong time ago would be

*Woodward@ not diable in SN with any use

Discussion in 210:

list of threads- 77 entield 'my child is being assesed for X how should I rpocess' with factual info

one from a newbie really upset and fearful 'I am at teh end of my tether, DS is atatcking e / in hospital, regressing- any experiences': 10 replies stating: 'yes plenty, unfortuanely I cant share them but hugs anyway and have you spoken to the '

fabbo

That just isnt how SN fucntions; to offer any help you have to know something of a backstory, a dx, etc. perfectly do-able in Chat but not so much in other areas.

Bother, forgot about the the stars things making it bold!

If all posts relating to the journo's old MN name have been deleted, are MN happy to delete all posts on request from MNers who don't want old posts to be available any more?

I haven't been reading this from the begining, can someone just tell me...is the DM journalist a MNer who has since had their posts deleted by MNHQ??? If so...wtf are MNHQ doing that for!? (sorry if I am misunderstanding this page!)

By WoodwardandBernstein on Sat 15-Aug-09 11:43:14
That is why you use anonymous posting names, how would anyone Reading the daily mail recognize the posters concerned? the thread she used can apply to hundreds of women.

well yes, it can. except that it doesn't, it applies to one woman who has a nasty ex boss. we know that.

let's say he spotted something about the post and thought 'i wonder?' and did a search. suddenly, from all the other things she's said, he KNOWS it's her and will use info gleaned from other posts should she take him to a tribunal.

that's the potential for harm imo.

Manatee, she is a mner who formerly told everyone her posting name (before she namechanged a couple of years ago) so now she is objecting to the fact that so many people know what her old posting name is (and are sharing it) so has asked for all references linking her RL name and her former MN name to be deleted - although that last post by Oops is still there so maybe HQ have given up now?

well look if people have been recognised from posts made on mumsnet by someone else falling onto mumsnet on their own surely common sense says that increasingl readership of a thread by a couple of million people makes it even more likely.

take away the details on most mumsnet help threads and you end up with nothing but a pile of useless nonsense.