"on MN this week" in the Daily Mail

[StealthBearWipesBumOnDailyMail]

Thread no 2

ha! cross posts
so actually we agree

also laugh when pople say " there is nothing on here that I wouldnt like being read out in rl"
well thats kind of true but in the WHOle when everythign can be analysed by people who know you no matter HOW trivial it is its a horribel feeling

so change your names often

Yes,King, but what some people are concerned about is that someone would recognise a situation from the DM & then search MN under the poster's name for confirmation or additional information. If the poster's name has been changed to Anonymous, they won't find their previous posts that way.

I'm only suggesting it as a possible alternative for those posters who would otherwise be asking for all, or all potentially sensitive, previous posts to be deleted - which would leave many threads incomprehensible & useless to anyone searching the archives.

oh god i think I am contradicting myself
as you were

Kingcanute - because you're going around looking for reasons to be offended i would imagine.

People do get stitched up by the press, absolutely but to suggest that it's part of the agenda is stupid.

I've written something this week about women in the sex industry. If you had any idea of the anxiety I've been through - making sure the girl's names are changed, making sure their photos are pixilated, making sure they are happy with the quotes, talking to the online editors to make sure they don't forget to disguise the photos, making sure the photos don't stay on the system....

We don't all just take the money and fuck everyone else.

it's not even slightly unlikely, nancy. i know you WANT it to be the case because it supports your 'lh is doing nothing iffy' line, but if people are recognised by a turn of phrase in the guardian agony column, then they sure as hell could be by a piece in the mail.

"Today I had my 'booking-in' appointment. Everything was fine, until I passed out. When I get home, my boss had rung to say I'm being let go because they think it's affecting my health and I'm unreliable since I became pregnant. Am I being unreasonable to think I'm still capable of doing my job as I'm pregnant, not ill?

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1206217/On-mumsnet-week-Can-I-sacked-pregnant.html#ixzz0OF ZABdL9
"

the question is... how many pregnant women fainted at their booking in app and then were sacked this week because their boss thinks they're unreliable because of their condition?

it's just bullshit to say that doesn't identify her.

Laos- when there is a worrying thread here, how often have people either confiormd the id so they can be supported, or otherwise, by checking for a posters user name?

You may as well set a control button to print troll in the message bar every three threads

OTOH apart from things like that I agree and JIC MNHQ do as well have saved my birth annuncement to a file.

Well, that would be a start I suppose rusty but, tbh, I would rather my more sensitive posts were not put into the national press, regardless of the user name used on them IYSWIM.

but the posts under the original name haven't been deleted nor did I read Justine's post as intending them to be , just those which directly associate the 2 names here and on the previous thread. Outing yourself is one thing (I was n't aware she did this directly but I suppose it is possible and I must have worked it out somehow) , but by others not really on.

Nancy the agenda isn't to offend IME but to not care about whether they do or not

Subrley different in intention I think, in effect not really

Nancy "Kingcanute - because you're going around looking for reasons to be offended i would imagine." WTF?

Where have I said I was offended by anything? I am very confused - luckily I don't care that much.

Nancy, you are rather making it sound as if the only way vulnerable individuals get any kind of protection in the press is through individual dedicated and principled journalists going out of their way to look out for their interests. And that in turn makes it sound as though KingCanute's opinion of the system as a whole isn't far off.

heathernofsuburbia;

yes I understand that, and I know the parents on the special needs board recieve invaluable help and support on mumsnet, however, the fact remains that this is not a closed forum , our posts are open to the world and his wife, and care should be taken to protect your RL indentity.

I'm not sure MNHQ can take on the role of social worker with certain vulnerable posters by offering them extra security, how would that work ?

The only problem I can see here is that the journalist concerned didn't have permission from MNHQ to print extracts from this site, I don't know what the legal implications of that are ? (if indeed there are any)

I think it's a good thing to have a weekly colum in the Daily Mail, the paper is read by lots of mothers who will benefit greatly from Mumsnet, I also think MN can do business with who they like (within reason).

This site will continue to grow and evolve, that's a good thing.

dailymailhates - I am saying there are plenty of dedicated, considerate journalists that don't routinely sitch people up and ruin lives. Far more so than the other variety in fact.

Nancy - maybe not intentionally - the fact is though that if something does go wrong (eg sweetness loses her tribunal because of her press coverage) I am pretty certain that the DM or the journo in question will not be stepping in to offer their support - or even to offer an appology I should think.

Nancy - absolutely true. But the 'other variety' can and do destroy lives fairly routinely.

And quite a few of them work at the DM.

hmm. Well fwiw she linked her own name and her original posting name pretty freely in the past, plus has recently had a lot of personal stuff published which anyone around 2 or more years ago would have instantly recognised as her (I even nearly started a thread about a guardian family article she publisehd recentely...). It would have to be pretty obvious as even I know it!
I don't know her new name, but I would imagine many people would have worked it out as she has a very distinctive writing style and a fairly recognisable set of opinions. I just haven't been around enough in the past year to notice.

I'm not surprised she has objected tbh. But I think its pointless delinking the names in these threads as its so easy to work it out.

I think its obvious that many more people are going to be recognised from threads publisehd in the print verson of the mail. I've recognised a few people from rl myself.

Frazzled - yes, have acknowledged there are unscrupulous journalists but they tend to get rumbled and not last very long as they notch up too many legal and PCC complaints.

Kingcanute - how how how could she lost her tribunal because of the daily mail?

'yes I understand that, and I know the parents on the special needs board recieve invaluable help and support on mumsnet, however, the fact remains that this is not a closed forum , our posts are open to the world and his wife, and care should be taken to protect your RL indentity'

True

But

if there is a general feeling that MNHQ act as lawsuit-weilding gatekeepers to info used by big bods (individual searchers being a different thing) then there is a cewrtain amount of safety in that

Whereas it does appear that may ahve changed, we are yet to learn forsure

I susepct many of us in SN will bugger off to specialised fora where our issues will be lost in the multitude. I do feel that would be a loss to MN generally. Plus of course on those fora my NY kids wouldn't fit, and really don't want to have a multitude of online stuff going on.

aitch;

you could argue that the posters boss could be a mumsnetter.?

care should be taken when posting on here, if you are worried about being identified, don't post.

Nancy, that is not the point and you know it, if something did go wrong because of this article (or any future articles) would the DM or the Journo be there to do anything about it?

Nope, thought not.

Based on birth rates, there are probably around 13000 booking-in appointments nationwide in any given week.

Approximately one in 20 pregnant women will experience some form of lightheadedness or dizziness. So one in 20 of those 13000, or 650, will experience some form of lightheadedness or dizziness. How many of those will actually have one or more fainting episodes? Say 1 in 4, or 162.

Now of those 162 women with booking-in appointments this week who have one or more fainting episodes, how many will faint actually at the booking-in appointment? I can't imagine that it's very many. Say it's 1 in 5 (which I think is significantly overestimating the likelihood), then we have 32 women who fainted during their booking-in appointments this week.

Of those, how many were sacked by over the phone the same day as a direct result of the fainting episode using a particular form of words? It seems to make the OP pretty identifiable to me, to her boss or to a coworker. And if any of those people do look at the MN post (which admittedly is made more challenging by the post having been attributed to Thunderduck) there are some extra personal details there that would leave them in little doubt.

so then we should just talk about nuthing then as post help threads without bits that could identify someone are useless

it's very much the point. You are discussing a situation that will never, ever happen.

If she lost her tribunal would MN care?

I don't think it would have occurred to sweetness, any more than many long standing mnetters that an op would appear in black and white for wider scrutiny just a few days later. Naive maybe, but unprecedented. Maybe LH has exposed a fatal flaw in MN ? Now even those Chat threads ("I've put it here so it will disappear after 30 days ....") can have no guise of being more secure.

'you could argue that the posters boss could be a mumsnetter.?
'

very true

equally though we can narrow down that likelihood to soem extent

not just in terms of who site is aimed at (that is not fixed though tends to fit) but simply becausre a lot of people (esp. my Mum, Mil etc IME) don't have access to a PC.

How many do not have access to a newsagent I wonder?