MNHQ can you please come and categorically state what opinions CAN be expressed toward DC?

[HoneyDragonMumshnet]

Because at the moment your vague explanations referencing campaigns and what the site is about for deletions aren't helping.

The way I see it, your all embracing keeness to be supportive to ONE high profile parent who has experienced racing a child with a disability and suffered the loss of a child, is inadvertently hurting many many more parents who are suffering now. Suffering because of his policies.

I feel you ought to support them too.

Non of this is going away. It's going to get more prolific through party broadcasting and manifestos.

Parents NEED the right to express their hurt, loss and bitterness too, and they don't have a stage do it on, a nice suit to say it in and a good wage to think about it with.

So please, come up with something uniform so you don't have to make slapdash confusing deletions. Help YOUR parents on here to able to talk freely about this issues.

TIA

I don't think anyone has NOT shown.

I'm sorry I'm on my phone at present and am useless on the keyboard.

@ChippingInLatteLover

... and since then, I have in fact, said that would be 'great'.

Too much cross posting - time to make Anyone?

We need real time chat

"I think it's just about affording our elected politicians (of all sides) a basic - and I do mean fairly basic! - level of respect tbh"

I think the issue with mn on things like this is that we are expected to treat people as if we know them or are personally in their presence. This is entirely inappropriate. This is NOT a social situation (wrt Cameron - obv it is a social situation wrt how we relate to each other on here). This is a POLITICAL situation and mn HAS to be a place where we can be absolutely searing in analysis of how we have been manipulated, as an electorate - for political reasons - and as honest as we like about how that makes us feel - for reasons of authenticity and personal expression.

MN has made mistakes like this before in things like how we position our debate in webchats. I attribute this to the fact that MNHQ are in fact in social situations with these guests and have probably used smooth social skills to get close enough to invite them on, and then of course have physically hosted them and behaved as one does when one is offering tea and biscuits in one's own space. But demanding that we behave the same is de-fanging us as political entities. It is privileging (subconsciously of course) crony-ism over political process. Which is how MNHQ get things done (by being chummy and lovely to important people - but we don't have that privilege, we are mere voters)

This is absolutely not comparable to the McCann case and it is a shocking (yet predicatable) category error to confuse the two. The McCanns are a private family, unwillingly in the public eye through personal catastrophe. Cameron is a political operator who holds great power and influence over all of our lives and is looking for more of the same. Please.

This has really disgusted and annoyed me. I feel like we are being lectured by a head mistress about our behaviour in school uniform - without understanding that we are being forced to defend ourselves

@vezzie

"I think it's just about affording our elected politicians (of all sides) a basic - and I do mean fairly basic! - level of respect tbh"

I think the issue with mn on things like this is that we are expected to treat people as if we know them or are personally in their presence. This is entirely inappropriate. This is NOT a social situation (wrt Cameron - obv it is a social situation wrt how we relate to each other on here). This is a POLITICAL situation and mn HAS to be a place where we can be absolutely searing in analysis of how we have been manipulated, as an electorate - for political reasons - and as honest as we like about how that makes us feel - for reasons of authenticity and personal expression.

MN has made mistakes like this before in things like how we position our debate in webchats. I attribute this to the fact that MNHQ are in fact in social situations with these guests and have probably used smooth social skills to get close enough to invite them on, and then of course have physically hosted them and behaved as one does when one is offering tea and biscuits in one's own space. But demanding that we behave the same is de-fanging us as political entities. It is privileging (subconsciously of course) crony-ism over political process. Which is how MNHQ get things done (by being chummy and lovely to important people - but we don't have that privilege, we are mere voters)

This is absolutely not comparable to the McCann case and it is a shocking (yet predicatable) category error to confuse the two. The McCanns are a private family, unwillingly in the public eye through personal catastrophe. Cameron is a political operator who holds great power and influence over all of our lives and is looking for more of the same. Please.

This has really disgusted and annoyed me. I feel like we are being lectured by a head mistress about our behaviour in school uniform - without understanding that we are being forced to defend ourselves

Sorry if you feel I'm lecturing, Vezzie - certainly not intention - intention was to try to have an open discussion about this issue and reach a consensus.

You make a good point about the being in the room thing. But it has, always, been a webchat rule that we ask for that extra civility - that doesn't mean avoiding difficult questions, just a basic level of politeness. There's a reason for that beyond our own level of comfort/discomfort and it is entirely pragmatic. We simply won't get interesting people to come on and do webchats if we get a reputation for slaughtering them. And lots of Mumsnetters enjoy the chats, which are a bit of Mumsnet institution, so we think they are worth doing.

"But, again, I agree I think we did over do it and will be more circumspect on the censorship going forward."

Iincredibly interesting choice of words in that quote, Justine. You meant moderation, I hope? If you're actually being more circumspect in your censorship, it means you don't have a transparent moderation policy, and that is very worrying.

Politicians need the support of mumsnet, but if our discussions of their shortcomings are being "circumspectly censored", then this place is being run for politicians.

i do think there has been a misunderstanding over the word
care
care can mean more that one thing. I don't think anyone would say that he did not care=love his son.
but did he care=carer for his son.....of course not. you can't be a high profile MP and a full time carer.

@SanitaryOwl

"But, again, I agree I think we did over do it and will be more circumspect on the censorship going forward."

Iincredibly interesting choice of words in that quote, Justine. You meant moderation, I hope? If you're actually being more circumspect in your censorship, it means you don't have a transparent moderation policy, and that is very worrying.

Politicians need the support of mumsnet, but if our discussions of their shortcomings are being "circumspectly censored", then this place is being run for politicians.

Hmm - In my head all deletion is censorship of a kind and that's why we've always felt Mumsnet needed to have very sound reason to intervene to justify that censorship...

Yesterday the PM said "I will take no lectures from anyone on looking after disabled people".

By definition he is using his experience - ie raising his son who tragically died - in response to a legitimate question. He stated clearly that because of his experience no-one is entitled to debate the issue of disability with him.

It is not "adding insult to injury" to express the view that it is wrong or indeed cynical for him to do that.

I agree with the comments about the Webchats - they really are a waste of time. I haven't bothered since Liz Truss.

It's far more effective to join and support a TU or specific campaign organisation and contact your MP on their behalf.

Look at the Trussell Trust if you think campaigns are only effective if you can exchange pleasantries over tea and biccies.

Right, Justine, we are very pleased that you can get these illustrious visitors: but there is a difference between amusing slebby visitors like, oh dear, poor Gok, and political visitors, whom I think it is absolutely fine to be very tough to - not abusive, obv - but tougher in a way that would feel too rude to do if you had invited the man in for tea and knew all his friends socially. I know this is not really about web chats (just an example of something I have felt before about mn) - but I feel that the register that is required from the organiser of the web chats is blander than the register that is entirely appropriate for the electorate.

Justine

I think that there are comparisons to be drawn with allegations that a bereaved couple murdered their child and that a bereaved father cynically uses death of child to win favour

I can't believe you think that, let alone wrote it.

You actually think there is a valid comparison between allegations that a private couple murdered their child and a politician cynically using the death of his child to win favour.

In the sense that it adds insult to injury

How? How is it adding insult to injury? His comments are public addresses, not private comments. He has no need to mention Ivan in public. None. IF he doesn't want people to comment on his doing so then he shouldn't do it.

But no one is saying DC should be immune to criticism

Yes, you are actually.

... and I agree with Owl.

I still can't quite come to grips with this either...

What we're really talking about here is where we draw the line - it's one thing saying someone's an arse, another saying they are a evil, blood-sucking cunt

We are going to need a list of insults that are acceptable to you and ones which aren't... it's really not too difficult now to see why the mods are confused and inconsistent if those are the kind of guidelines they are given.

"I think that there are comparisons to be drawn with allegations that a bereaved couple murdered their child and that a bereaved father cynically uses death of child to win favour."

Except that there is no evidence for the former, and we all saw Cameron do the latter in response to a legitimate and important question from Milliband. Or do you disagree that he used his experience of caring for his son in order to close down debate on that question? Because that's certainly what I saw.

He is our elected PM. Evening he does in his professional capacity is, and ought to be, subject to scrutiny. What your posts seem to be saying is that under certain circumstances we will not be allowed to comment on his actions, words or possible motivations. I think this is what many of us are struggling with.

*Everything

He is our elected PM. Evening he does in his professional capacity is, and ought to be, subject to scrutiny. What your posts seem to be saying is that under certain circumstances we will not be allowed to comment on his actions, words or possible motivations. I think this is what many of us are struggling with.

I totally agree. And when he is using Ivan during debates then, IMO, he has to expect people to be cynical about it. Why won't he take any lectures about looking after disabled people? Because he knows he was very fortunate with all the resources he had. His experiences of the NHS were different to most people's.

If he is prepared to shut down a debate as aggressively as he did yesterday, then he has to expect debate on other forums etc.

If you choose to act in a cynical way, then you run the risk of people noticing that and commenting on it. Having previously suffered a bereavement does not give you a free pass on this. The thing that adds insult to injury is the cynical use of the situation to close down debate and attempt to evade legitimate criticism, not the fact that people have noticed this is what happened.

The key role of an MP is conduit between laypeople and the rest of parliament. As leader, the PM has to be open to debate on all areas, painful or otherwise. An MP who had been victim of abuse would not get away with avoiding pertinent discussion on related subjects, nor should they. If this were a topic that DC felt upset by, he would have been better to look at the facts and not highlight his own experience. Using his personal experience to relate positively to questioning would be a matter for his personal judgement, but using it to disallow debate is not only childish and cynical, but incredibly harmful to the very nature of our political process.

Justine, you need to decide if courting public figures at the detriment of genuine debate is where MN should be. This whole fiasco does make MN appear to be colluding with a very well greased political machine, and I am personally uncomfortable with that.

On a separate note, the real 'insult to injury' in this is that a parenting website could possibly aliken a grieving family being accused of murder with blatant politicising such as this.

@ChippingInLatteLover

I still can't quite come to grips with this either...

What we're really talking about here is where we draw the line - it's one thing saying someone's an arse, another saying they are a evil, blood-sucking cunt

We are going to need a list of insults that are acceptable to you and ones which aren't... it's really not too difficult now to see why the mods are confused and inconsistent if those are the kind of guidelines they are given.

You really don't see the difference between the level of aggression and hostility of those two statements? [baffled]

I don't think this has anything to do with the difference between an arse and a blood-sucking cunt. It is about the difference between unwarranted abuse and insult by one indvidual to another, and calling out cynical evasion with the intent of suckering the nation into another round of profiteering, at the cost of poverty and misery to those who have least to begin with.

They are both PA's as far as I am aware we can't call anyone either of them directly, unless I've missed a disclaimer in the talk guidelines.

I'm baffled that of all the recent comments, that's the one MNHQ chose to respond to.

I think it is because it is the easiest

I'm baffled that of all the recent comments, that's the one MNHQ chose to respond to.

I'm not. It's a cack-handed diversionary tactic when MNHQ has really dropped the ball but want us to "look over there!"

Although I did like the PA [baffled] at the end.

Btw Justine, can I just say thanks for engaging in this debate. I was genuinely aggrieved about being deleted from the other thread and it restores my faith in MN that you are taking the time to think about this issue.

FWIW - words on a screen - the difference between being called an arse and a blood sucking cunt is a difference of degree, not principle. Obviously one is less rude than the other, but it's all name calling at the end of the day.

I think a lot of the political debate on MN is quite self policing, inasmuch as if you're just coming on to throw around insults, you'll soon be ignored. I don't really think that needs censorship moderation, tbh. The more interesting threads - like the one about Cameron's conference speech (I didn't see yesterday's) - are where people from either side of the political divide come together to try to explain their different points of view. I think colourful language has to be accepted as part of that.

And we're only reflecting wider society. It's a fact that a lot of Labour supporters are very tribal and the ones who post on here are just part of that tradition.

I think it's fair to delete a post that is an outright lie or unwarranted speculation. But other than that, I think what politicians say in order to attract our votes ought to be something that we can freely discuss without fear of censorship moderation.

So, a politician (who happens to be a parent) uses his experience of parenthood to stifle debate about policy. Mumsnet then uses a politician's status as a parent to stifle debate about the Prime Minister's actions as a politician.

Interesting.