"on MN this week" in the Daily Mail

[StealthBearWipesBumOnDailyMail]

Thread no 2

Sounds bang on manatee

yesterday there were a tousand posts (OK maybe a slight exaggeration but not far off...) saying 'X wouldn't touch SN'

Well, if I were X (can assure you I am not) I'd have been deeply offended by that, I would have either posted on here or e-mailed MNHQ to say that- it's one thing people being worried about their search for the eprfect school run dress being lifted (even then I'm not a fan at all) quite another for other areas- sn, MH, realtionships- and frankly is people even questioned whether I'd do that i would be well pissed off.

Either the fact that she ahsnt done that is telling about her intentions, or she dosn't give a damn, which is doubly sad as an oldie who remembers her as harsh but fair.

Aitch - that scenario is so ludicrous, it's as likely as being hit by a meteorite. If we all lived in fear of those 10 million to 1 chances of things happening we'd never leave the house.

it's one of the reasons i can't take any of the arguments seriously. It's all so hysterical and pie in the sky.

The only complaint about the DM column that I think is justified is that they did not seek permission beforehand

Sorry, just realised oops spelled it wrong so perhaps it is slipping under the radar rather than being ignored?

I do feel quite sorry for the 'author' actually, I mean, what I remember of her as a MNetter was a good sort, and I'm sure that hasn't changed.
She has made a wretched, wretched misjudgment, compounded by fundamental error in her C&P....
but she is underneath all this, just a mum like the rest of us and I'm sure she is feeling just awful right now.

Nancy it is not ridiculous really, people are recognised here all the time and yet MN has nowhere near the exposure that a national newspaper does. It is simple maths really, a few people seeing a thread = occasional outing of members - a much larger number of people seeing a thread = much more than occasioanl outing of members.

yes I'm sure
but she's not helping by safeguarding her own privacy but not explaining anything she has in place to do the same for the rest of us plebs

Recently there was a long thread started by a mumsnetter who was working up to leaving her abusive partner. If her thread had been quoted in the newspaper, and been seen by her partner or his family, it could have had disastrous results.

I'd like to hope that the DM would be careful about how it used such information, but I am not sure.

I find it bizarre that in the original [author's name classified for weirdly two-faced reason] flounce thread, she castigated LittleLapin for being heartless/thoughtless/inconsiderate of people's feelings.

I will be interested to read her reasons for making other members feel, rightly or wrongly, similarly concerned.

Quote, tbh I am not so sure about that - although I stand by the fact that who the journo is makes no difference to that actual problem - the fact is that she is an MNer, a pretty tough one in terms of giving as good as she gets as I recall. She would have had no illusions about how this would go down here and was more likely to have been hoping that no-one would notice for a while than thinking we would all so "Oh, ok, fab, thanks [insert posting name here]"

I'm wondering if it's possible for Tech to actually change the posting name on posts retrospectively?

If so, instead of asking for posts to be deleted, couldn't people just ask for that to be done for any sensitive things they have posted in the past - it could be changed to 'AnonymousPoster' or something like that, so that the thread will still be comprehensible and useful.

It obviously wouldn't be a solution in all cases - it wouldn't help someone who feared that they would be instantly identifiable from their circumstances if their posts were published in the DM, but it would mean the posts would not be searchable by someone who has read the DM & wants to dig for more, so it would be helpful in the nasty boss/nosey MIL scenarios some people are fearing.

Stayingsunnygirl, that's the crux of it really. Someone could get hurt or worse and that is why MNHQ should do everything they can to protect the vulnerable here. I'm confident that they will.

Stayngsunny, DH used to work in the press doing non-writingy stuff. Given the stories he has told (shared on here so cant repeat) the rpess, generally, does categorically not give a shit.

I can name an exception- except I can't. Because they could link it to me as the person helped.

Fun this, huh?

i dont think the two things are comparable

unless someone says your rl name its not an issue
although i would reccy sporadic name changes

Rusty, it is not just the names that are the problem though is it? It is the individual stories and mannerisms etc that are more of a problem. In effect most of iur names are as good as "anonomousposter" as long as we don't use our name in there somewhere (or out ourselves like certain journos...)

BA it's NOT just about names. It's about circumstances leading to someone being recognisable.

well no, feeling a wee bit sorry for the poor cow does not change how pissed off and concnerned i am about the possible ramifications for MN and the meeja.

Lily - that is such an ignorant sweeping statement. like saying all nurses are lazy, fat trollops.

KingCanute
yes i thihnk it's fair that i have " hissy fits" ( nicely sexist there) when people out my current name wiht an old one that was outed many a time

say you were outed as Jane Hargreaves, then you chanaged your name to start again and pople KEPT referring to you as Canute - youd be cross

RB good idea, fortunately I randomly namechange a lot and even I cannot find my own posts- my fear (that's over egging it tbh, have simultaneous levels of pissedoffedness about a twat on ebay and some plonkers about a thing at this very minute) is that as X is someone known then she could trace the backstory. I think the sort opf person who'd actually do that however is so rare as to be virtually non-existent. others however have stuck to one name and therefore your idea is good, MNHQ? Can it be done?

Not that anyone would look at it, but I have made my profile invisible.

It would be quite easy to identify a lot of posters from the info and photos they have on their profiles.

I haven't said anything contentious enough to ask for my posts to be deleted. I'm just musing on the 'principles' involved here.

"I went for a job interview and fainted because I'm pregnant. The ginger haired oaf who was interviewing seemed to think I needed lots of sugary tea. The receptionist rang my DH who came to get me. Do you think they will figure out it's because I'm pregnant?"

As mentioned before, perhaps all threads should be treated like 'chat' with a life span of only 90 days - I don't know why it is important to keep threads for longer - usually things and circumstances have changed in 3 months ...

except it is a problem when your posting name is printed, and all your old posts searched to piece together who you are...

of course you're all right, because your old posts were all removed, weren't they?

Nancy, it is nothing like saying nurses are fat. The fact is that history shows the press do not give a monkies for the most part - actually I cannot think of an example where the press has shown that it does care that much about anyone or anything.

BA - I said stampy fits but I am intrigued to know why you think hissy fits are sexist - do boys not have them then?

Anyway, you are neatly mising the point and I cannot be arsed to argue with you.