I have rejoined just to ask this question.

[hathorisaskingaquestion]

Why are some members of this site allowed to get away with persistently being vile, pushing an agenda, defending the indefensible, upsetting other members, twisting versions of events and generally being nasty, and they do not get banned?

Not about any one particular poster, but I have noticed that some stronger "personalities" on here seem to be Teflon coated.

Why is this?

Why do the owners of this site want that kind of vile poster and do not seem to care about the number of truly decent kind posters who are being upset and driven off the site?

GetOrff

Time for bed young lady

Reading the last 10 pages of this thread is an hour of my life I won't get back. You bastards. Oh well, at least it wasn't 50 Shades.

Oo I went toJersey and saw signs for Gorey fete.

23 pages and by the time I get to the end its all gone 'lighthearted' and not at all what the OP was about.

Hathor sorry you're having a shit time, don't know what happened on here with you so can't comment.

I also wanted to know why the charming 'lighthearted' thread about abusing husbands was pulled?

What a fucking joke that was.

I agree OP that some posters get away with all sorts though. As MN relies on self moderation it must be because a lot of us in steerage are too scardey pants to stand up to them for fear of being turned on.

The whole mumsnet 'royalty' thing is a problem. The only ones that seem to be in denial about that are the royalty lot! But they would be really as it doesn't 'affect' them.

I also wanted to know why the charming 'lighthearted' thread about abusing husbands was pulled

Amber leaf, was answered ^^

and I think there is no point going on about 'Royalty' as we all differ in who we think are 'Royalty'. The posters I think of as Royalty are never involved in the rucks, they are far and away the most reasonable of posters. To me, the shit-stirrers are 'wannabes' out to make a name for themselves (clarification: not the poster with the name Wannabe!) and the po-faced who can see the bad in the most innocent of posts.

LtEve yes I saw your post re reporting but that doesn't really answer my question.

I don't understand why you and how ever many others reporting that thread meant it got pulled?

What was the reason, have MNHQ poated to say why?

As far as I'm aware even if a poster asks for their own thread to be deleted they won't do that without good reason. Ie please delete as it hasn't gone the way I thought it would and I feel embarrassed.

As someone said on that thread if the OP was someone else less 'known' it would have been worse.

The OP didn't report it. It was deleted because it was full of PA's, which are against the MN rules. That was why I reported it, and MNHQ must have agreed, so they deleted it, as is their right.

MNHQ don't have to explain. TSSDNCOP remember!

Full of personal attacks? really?

If telling a domestic abuser in denial that they are indeed abusive is a personal attack then yes it was full of them.

Interestingly there were very few if any single deletions on that thread.

I actually think that's exactly the sort of thing they should have to explain!

Yes, really

If you really believe what you say, then you would have pointed out the same to the posters who threw cast iron pots at their husbands head, took kitchen knives to toys in front of the kids, threw 42 inch TVs out of windows and so on. But no-one did. The whole thread became a PA on one poster.

Ever heard the expression 'death of a thousand papercuts'? One post on its own may not have been a PA, but fifty of them?

And again, MNHQ don't have to tell us anything, they do as they want, they do what they need to. They did email the people who reported, which was good of them, but they didn't have to.

People were adressing the OP because 1. She was the OP! And 2. She was trying to backtrack and minimise. She was positively gleeful initially its only when people started to say she was abusive that she changed her stance, then came the snarky snippy posts-that is what people were reacting to IMO. That's why people kept on.

Again yes if it was so awful why no deletions?

You said on that thread that the OP is a friend but I am still shaking my head at her being defended tbh.

See it's when the lying starts that I switch off.

I never said the OP was a friend. I don't have any friends on here, I don't know any posters in RL. The only one I know is Valhalla, and she's gone.

You aren't listening to what I am saying, so what is the point in carrying on. You believe e what you want to believe. I know the truth, I have a copy of the thread and I'm not interested in your spin on it. We will never agree, because you don't want to hear a POV that is not your own.

There is just no point.

what gas explosion?

I'm pretty sure you said the word friend? As in you consider her a friend on here? If I'm mistaken sorry, it was definitely one of the posters defending her so if I'm wrong that's where the confusion lies.

Don't call me a liar. I have no reason to lie.

I am listening to what you are saying, I just don't agree with you!

I'm not putting any 'spin' on anything, it was actually very clear cut and I certainly wasn't the only poster with that opinion-far from it.

Why the hell would you have a copy of the thread?! How odd.

I am giving this thread an award for Most Incredible Double (Triple?) Thread Drift Ever.

I think it should be a rule that if you have to use the word 'royalty' in a post that you should be made to state who you mean.

Otherwise it's just meaningless as well as an unpleasant attack on other MNetters.

If you can't make your point without resorting to using the word, then you're not making your point.

Who WAS the op of that thread?

So many questions...

This thread makes my brain hurt tbh.

Hope you're OK after the 'splosion :(

I missed the thread too Hulls. I'm seriously not putting in the hours anymore

ooh xpost

I'm here to whinge about the bastarding rain for the 1,000 day in a row.