Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

"on MN this week" in the Daily Mail

1001 replies

StealthBearWipesBumOnDailyMail · 14/08/2009 11:13

Thread no 2

OP posts:
KingCanuteIAmAndTheDMCanFOff · 15/08/2009 15:31

I haven't said anyone is responsible Saintly, I have just said I am not happy with it going on!

Soupy, you think the stalker would have read it and thrown it away? The fact it is in a newspaper does not mean it will go away tomorrow. The knock on effects of articles is not a new concept, it ihas long been known that one newspaper article can start bigger things - and articles are not dispossed of, they are kept by many people not just the publisher themselves.

Saintly, fair enough you google a subject you have been talking about and come up with you, it would be a bit more surprising if your boss did that though wouldn't it?

Winehouse · 15/08/2009 15:32

The 'tomorrow's fish and chip paper' argument does not stand up, and hasn't for a long time. You can read news articles and features online years after they first appeared.

Winehouse · 15/08/2009 15:33

x posts with Nancy

LilyBolero · 15/08/2009 15:34

Bear in mind, during the JudgeFlounce events, google and MN were used together to find out who JF really was, who (s)he was purporting to be, where the alleged JF worked, and the house in which (s)he lived. It was then used to find the real JF's place of work, and to email the alleged JF. It is not hard to work out who people are, and journalists have ALWAYS mined MN as a source of material - whether it is to illustrate a topic or as the topic itself.

It can be very very deceptively cosy on MN, and can lure you into posting much more than you want to. But you should always remember you're swimming in shark-infested waters, and can be bitten at any time. With or without the involvement of the Daily Mail! You never know who's reading what you post!

DailyMailsaysVOTELABOUR · 15/08/2009 15:38

I never thought I'd ever agree that viewing newspapers online should be by paid for subscription. Plus, I really think mn need to review their policy of not deleting threads after a certain period. It won't solve everything but it would provide some reassurance that things posted in innocence (naivety?) aren't accessible forever.

LilyOfTheMountain · 15/08/2009 15:40

At the very least, I would appeal to MNHQ to rethink at least one past-posts refusal they haev issued absed on the posters identity and vulnerability (not me).

KingCanuteIAmAndTheDMCanFOff · 15/08/2009 15:45

So is this bit by Shafted true then?

"It's all very clear now.

DM (and Times) owned by Associated News.

MN cannot sue Associated News.

Why not?

MN's lawyer, Mark Stephens, also represents the DM:

here"

Because that would be a conflict of interests wouldn't it? And would leave MN without a lawyer?

DailyMailsaysVOTELABOUR · 15/08/2009 15:47

Get a new lawyer if so?

KingCanuteIAmAndTheDMCanFOff · 15/08/2009 15:51

I am not sure it is that easy, wasn't he woking on the cheap or something? Also he is supposed to be quite good I am not sure that HQ could afford someone who would stand up to him.

The other point of course is how much DM knew abou the connection and how much they are banking on MN being unable to do anything about it - giving them carte blanche to do anything they like really as no-one can do anything about it. (a theme that seems to run through a lot of the daily mails dealings)

wannaBe · 15/08/2009 16:11

But we all say that "well two million people read the daily mail and my friends read the mail so they would identify me on there but not on mn," but reality is that we can't know that for sure. Do you know where all your friends post? Do you know for certain that your friends don't post, or at best lurk, on mn? The people I know in rl don't know I post here (well that is to say I haven't told them that I do), so for all I know they could be reading my every post, and from my postings I'm fairly identifyable so it wouldn't be hard for them to keep track.

I think people are too sure of themselves when they say that people they know in rl don't post, or read mn. Perhaps they don't, but all they have to do is google one day, and for something to ring a bell with them, and voila, they have a whole posting history they can look back on..

StealthBearWipesBumOnDailyMail · 15/08/2009 16:12

Why are people still coming on and saying that this is no worse than your posts being on MN.

If I come on and winge about my job I'm assessing the risk that my boss will do a search for a particular sey of circumstances, or be an MNer and happen to spot my thread and recognise the circumstances.
If it's printed in the newspaper there's a fair chance it will be delivered straight to his door. IMO the risks aren't comparable. Yes there are risks for both but they're not the same risk!

OP posts:
LilyOfTheMountain · 15/08/2009 16:12

Actually, as I have only close family and one real strong friend and neitehr own a PC, I can say that yes.

I do wish they would, I have tried to persuade them- woudl be nice.

StealthBearWipesBumOnDailyMail · 15/08/2009 16:14

"reality is that we can't know that for sure. "

no, it's about the risks!

risk of being identified:
MN only: x%
MN + odd mention in national news: x% + y%
MN + weekly column in national news: much more!

OP posts:
KingCanuteIAmAndTheDMCanFOff · 15/08/2009 16:20

Exactly, we risk assess before we post, if wwe know that part of the risk is being in a weekly column in a paper with 2 million plus readership then most of us would post differenlty (if at all).

anyoldDMfucker · 15/08/2009 16:20

yea but 2 million people don't throw away the online daily mail do they. that's 2 million people looking at the daily garbage every day on the internet compare to 800,000 looking at munsnet every month. a larger group of people read the daily garbage than read mumsnet so chances of being recognised by the spotty single teeanger boy living next door are much bigger than him finding you on mumsnet.

think mumsnet should redo its slogan to by parents for every tom dick and harry

LilyBolero · 15/08/2009 16:22

If you don't want to be recognised then you shouldn't post any identifying details imo. If you're not really bothered, then don't worry about the DM.

StealthBearWipesBumOnDailyMail · 15/08/2009 16:26

aaaaaaaaaaaargh
circle

OP posts:
RumourOfAHurricane · 15/08/2009 16:26

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

StealthBearWipesBumOnDailyMail · 15/08/2009 16:26

half the OPs on here wouldn't exist if they couldn't post details - it's the details that make the threads what they are

OP posts:
KingCanuteIAmAndTheDMCanFOff · 15/08/2009 16:27

Lily, as has been said to death on here, it is not as easy as that, if it was then we would not have this problem would we!

anyoldDMfucker · 15/08/2009 16:27

well then no point in most people posting then as no identifying details will only give a dull unhelpful website as noone would post anything useful.

RumourOfAHurricane · 15/08/2009 16:27

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

RumourOfAHurricane · 15/08/2009 16:28

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

LilyOfTheMountain · 15/08/2009 16:29

gosh that is a new idea lily

people are upset

whether or not we agree (and I a regular namechanger myself so fairly unssearchable) it doesn't hurt to acknowldge that IMVHO, whereas blanket statements just make peple feel small

KingCanuteIAmAndTheDMCanFOff · 15/08/2009 16:30

Shiney - I speak the most sense..... just badly and in a non-sensical manner

Gets frustrating doesn't it stealth

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread