Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk

Back to thread
Original poster

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

18 replies

HoneyDragonMumshnet · 15/10/2014 18:47

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 Thanks

Go to post
MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 15/10/2014 20:18

Hi - yes it is nuanced to be honest - we find it's not easy to tread it ourselves. But essentially there is a level of nasty abuse of politicians (and slebs for that matter) that we think we shouldn't allow. I'm talking about the beyond the pale stuff, that makes you cringe. Much as we wouldn't allow personal attacks on Mumsnetters (in fact we'd probably allow much less about Mumsnetters).

Of course people have every right to be critical of politicians and the issues are crucially important, so clearly feelings feelings will run high. But out and out abuse and nastiness is, we think, not on as well as potentially damaging to MN's reputations and hence future campaigns.

But, of course, it's open to discussion - sorry I have to rush out now but please do add your thoughts on here about how you think we should moderate things like this and we'll pick it up in the morning.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 16/10/2014 10:22

@ItsAllGoingToBeFine

I'm sure I've reported pretty vicious attacks on well known people before and got the response that people in the public eye are used to it and don't need protection from MN or some such.

I haven't seen deleted posts but anything disablist obvs bad, but suggesting DC uses his son for political gain only mildly unpleasant and prob true. Is this what deletions were for?

We probably are less likely to delete attacks on public figures than private individuals/mumsnet users. 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 c*, for example. Or that they cynically use the death of their child for personal gain.

This is really the grey area we are trying to negotiate and often it comes down to context and level of aggression.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 16/10/2014 10:24

@thereturnofshoesy

i have found it very confusing. all of a sudden comments about the prime minister are censored. he seems to be more protected that a member of mn. very strange. i really don't get why someone who has chosen to take himself into the most public of offices, who has mentioned his son on numerous occasions. is suddenly a protected species. a quote from a mn post/ "Just a word about the wider context and our thinking on this as well.

We try as an organisation to campaign on serious issues like miscarriage, SN and sexual violence. In order to be in any way effective on things like that, we need to engage with politicians, great and small. That's just not going to happen if MN is perceived as a place where posters can make enormously insulting statements about named public figures at will.

We also regularly get major politicians on for webchats - another thing that could just stop happening if we don't draw some lines about what we think isn't OK."

I know I for one would rather be able to talk freely about politicians, than worry about them not caring about a mn campaign(I bet most of them don't any way)
I think this site should be about the members who give daily. not over paid politicians

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

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 16/10/2014 10:29

@olgaga

I also posted on the other thread.

Cameron certainly did use his experience as the parent of a disabled child to great effect prior to the 2010 election.

He spoke very movingly and in great detail about his experience of using the NHS with his son Ivan. This improved his Party's standing in the polls in relation to whether a Tory Govt would protect the NHS.

It also meant that voters believed Cameron when he said there would be "No top-down reorganisation of the NHS".

Following the election they immediately embarked on a top-down reorganisation of the NHS which has been widely criticised - not least by senior Tories only last weekend.

It is clearly the case that Cameron has used his personal experience to great effect.

I do not believe it was an appropriate way to answer the legitimate questions put to him yesterday.

Nor do I believe it is appropriate to raise it when there is criticism of Tory policy on the NHS, or Welfare Reform.

That was the point that was being made by the OP on the other thread. It was appropriate for MNHQ to express the opinion that the point was clumsily made.

But I do not feel it is appropriate for MNHQ to censor legitimate concern about the conduct of public figures.

Yes, I think you've made a good argument here, Olgaga. I think perhaps we slightly over did it on the other thread with the deletions - may have been better to post.

By way of explanation in terms of our moderation, this situation felt a bit like the Kate and Gerry McCann threads, where we've always taken the view that we won't allow the conspiracy theorist arguments that they killed Madeleine because it's simply such a nasty allegation re a family who've suffered the loss of a child.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 16/10/2014 10:33

@thereturnofshoesy

i do wish you wouldn't compare the MM threads to. the mcanns are only known to us because of a tragic occurrence. they did not chose to become famous, they are not politicians. so there is no comparison;.

I disagree tbh. It doesn't really matter if you chose to become famous or not - it's a tragedy to lose a child either way.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 16/10/2014 10:45

@DrankSangriaInThePark

Whilst I absolutely agree that people should not be allowed to say they think the McCanns killed their own daughter, that is only a small part of the reason threads about them are jumped on though, isn't it?

Let's not be disingenuous here. The hovering litigators make you quicker onto the button as well.

No, really, it's nothing to do with McCann lawyers - never heard a peep from them. Everything to do with a strong belief that Mumsnet should be about supporting parents who've lost a child, not accusing them of killing their own daughter.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 16/10/2014 10:47

@Treats

You deleted me from the thread started after Cameron's conference speech. I said I thought it was manipulative to reference his dead son in defence of his party's record on the NHS. I stand by that and would say it again after his performance in the Commons yesterday.

I didn't attack him personally or call him any names.

I didn't say that he hadn't suffered and grieved as a parent - both to a disabled child and as someone who had lost a child.

I didn't say he was a liar.

I think my criticism was valid comment of him AS A POLITICIAN. He's the one who has brought his children into a political debate and implicitly asked us to judge him on that basis. And we are judging. Which we have every right to do.

Had he not mentioned his son, I think you would be quite right to delete anyone who used his actions or experience as a parent to judge him as a politician.

I think you do need to get your policy very clear on this one. But with full reference to the fact that it was DC himself who brought his son into the political fray and not any of the posters here.

Yes I think you make fair point.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 16/10/2014 11:00

@HoneyDragonMumshnet

So we can say that we dislike his mentioning his role as a carer to a child with disabilities to shut down an arguement.

But we can say he used his position as grieving father to do so?

Because he did use his position as the carer of a child with disabilities to gain votes from others in the same position.

And I ask whether that's appropriate to discuss on general threads or indeed a web chat with any politician discussing it.

Well you can't know that he used his position as a carer of a child with disabilities to gain votes from others in the same position really can you? You could equally argue that he talked about his position as carer in order to show how strongly it matters to him personally...

But it's hopeless for us to give you a set of words that are or aren't acceptable - as said it's all about meaning, context, level of aggression etc. Same with a webchat - we ask users to be civil, to treat guest as they might if they were talking face to face - so often it's about how you ask the question, not what the question is - does it seem downright mean/rude or not.

Hope that makes some sense?

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 16/10/2014 11:06

@ChippingInLatteLover

Justine

You seem to be missing the point we are making, but I don't know how to better explain it?!

The Mcanns are not talking about M to do anything other than find M (and raise awareness of missing children). Their 'media time' is about finding their daughter.

DC is talking about Ivan in the political arena and making comments about him/his care/his experience in the NHS - he is doing this to answer questions, shut down debate and influence votes.

There simply isn't any comparison. The only thing they have in common is distress over their child.

You said...I disagree tbh. It doesn't really matter if you chose to become famous or not - it's a tragedy to lose a child either way

No one but no one is saying that DC wasn't distressed over either Ivan's condition or his death. No one is saying it's not a tragedy to lose a child.

What we are saying is that if HE speaks about his son in relationship to saving the NHS or anything else then we should have the right to discuss what he has said and our feelings about him discussing Ivan at these times.

Olagaga explained it really well.

As said to HoneyDragon - DC's motives in talking about Ivan are open to interpretation and some people have indeed belittled his own experience of caring before.

But yes, broadly, as said, I think Olagaga made good points and I do agree that it isn't exactly the same thing as McCanns - I just used it as an explanation for why we deleted quite as much as we did last night.

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

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 16/10/2014 11:21

@ChippingInLatteLover

No Justine it's still as clear as mud tbh. You admit we have a point (via Treats post) but then don't say 'oops our moderation was wrong and we wont do that again'.

Well, I said:
"Yes, I think you've made a good argument here, Olgaga. I think perhaps we slightly over did it on the other thread with the deletions - may have been better to post."

And this:

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

I think that pretty much covers it no?

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 16/10/2014 11:39

@olgaga

Justine, do you and your colleagues really think allegations that a couple murdered their own child are on a par with criticising Cameron's performance yesterday in the Commons?

If so I certainly disagree. Frankly there is no similarity between those two issues.

If that was the rationale behind the moderation of yesterday's thread then it was certainly flawed.

The experience of raising and sadly losing a disabled child does not give a Prime Minister immunity from criticism. It is the fact that he seems to think it does which made him the subject of yesterday's thread, and that is a legitimate cause for concern and discussion.

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.

In the sense that it adds insult to injury.

But no one is saying DC should be immune to criticism...

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 16/10/2014 11:40

@ChippingInLatteLover

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

Too much cross posting - time to make Brew Anyone?

We need real time chat Shock

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 16/10/2014 11:57

@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.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 16/10/2014 12:08

@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...

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 16/10/2014 14:57

@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]

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 17/10/2014 09:48

@Twentythree9teen

I think Mumsnet have handled this very badly. First Rowan very badly indeed and now Justine by not being clear.

This argument was made earlier:

> it's just not on to accuse a bereaved parent of milking their loss

When that person is the PM, and he chooses to bring it up himself, it's on. It's 100% completely on. That's what democracy is.

The Mumsnet argument that they won't be able to campaign if they let even one poster accuse him of that is despicable. That's not what democracy is.

I hereby accuse him of cynically using his son's death to shut down debate; I also accuse him of cynically using his son's death to get votes.

So, will you delete that or not?

No, we won't delete that Twentythree9teen - as I said right at the start of the thread, we were over-enthusiastic on the deletions on this issue on the other thread and people have made good arguments here explaining why your opinion is a valid one to hold (though some may disagree with it).

That said, there is a line which I believe we need to draw. I think it's right that we delete the really rude/vicious stuff about our elected representatives (of all political persuasion obviously) - the DC is c* type thing - and I believe we will struggle to be taken seriously/ get these people on for webchats if we don't.

We simply cannot be entirely prescriptive about what we will and won't delete on this score - this is the grey area I was talking about - as it comes down to context, level of aggression etc. and I believe you would want moderators to take all that into account and not just knee-jerk delete things according to a list of words?

This discussion has been really useful - thanks HoneyDragon for starting it and to everyone who's taken the trouble to contribute thoughts.

I'm sorry to those who believe we've handled all this badly but of course we're not perfect (far from it) and moderation is a nuanced business. The way we moderate the site has always been/ will always be up for discussion and argument and of course we will make mistakes - over time that's how our guidelines/mod policy has evolved. We very much see it as a collaborative effort rather than as MNHQ issuing dictats.

So thanks again everyone for your input and please do add further thoughts - we are watching.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 17/10/2014 10:28

@FanjoForTheMammaries

Can you explain why a thread title

'Some disabled people not worth the minimum wage" has been allowed to stand, Justine.

Have reported and others apart from me found it upsetting.

Hi Fanjo - obviously it's an issue in the news and a valid discussion but agree the title isn't great - Rowan tells me the team are in discussion with about how we might edit the title.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 17/10/2014 10:29

@GilesGirl

Huh. I thought Mumsnet prided themselves on not being a moderated site.

Has that changed?

Site has always been moderated GilesGirl - but we try to have as few rules and intervention as possible.

Watch this thread for updates

Tap "Watch" to get all the latest updates

End of posts

There are no more MNHQ posts on this thread

Back to thread