MNHQ - please can you clarify your policy on fraud?

[justanothernameagain]

THREAD ON GENERAL FRAUD - please do not delete.

If someone is accused of committing fraud via MN, by several MNers.
If said MNers have a load of evidence they would like to share with you.

Do you see it as your role to investigate and forward to the police?

Or do you just want to get the site "back to normal" and take a hands off approach?

@katemumsnet please can you clarify?

I'm with wellerr here I'm afraid.If people chose to give money or their private contact details to someone they only "know" through the Internet, it's on them. As we tell our DC every day (those of us with DC old enough anyway). It's Using The Internet 101, surely?MNHQ have been very clear on this all along, they cannot, IMHO "vouch" or "legitimise" anyone who posts here. They host a web forum open to all. They are not the FBI or the police. Moving threads to a certain section on the boards means nothing, as a quick glance through other threads in the sections will tell you. The MNer which said she "knew him" was clearly not being 100% truthful, again this was clear in her posts in her posts if you read them. If I read it correctly, no one actually reported anything to MNHQ, or the police, at the time when they said they had received sexually suggestive messages from another poster. I did report these threads persistently and MNHQ were always very clear that they could not be sure and in this case were erring on the side of caution. Perhaps they came down on the wrong side, but they did not force people to give anyone money, or their contact details. I think people need to take some personal responsibility and I think anyone using MN has to accept it's an open forum and any of us could be anyone. I have chosen to donate to things from here in the past and took the chance people were who they said they were, and if they weren't it was my own decision. I have sympathy for MNHQ as some of these posts are extremely aggressive towards them, they also have an unpleasantly pompous and lecturing tone. It's ironic to me they are defending people who chose to give money and private contact details to someone off the internet, yet blaming the people hosting the site. To me, it's like blaming BT when you give money to a Nigerian prince who calls you on your landline to explain his money is tied up in a locked bank account

MNHQ did put up the usual wording about not giving more than you can afford - what else can they do? Do you want a terribly moderated site where any post (perhaps for including the word Scunthorpe) is deleted if it could possibly be dodgy? If so, Netmums is available! If you don't want any moderation at all and the ability to troll hunt robustly on threads, I gather Reddit is good, personally I can't understand it as I'm clearly too old. MN is a middle way and there are benefits but also risks, we have to accept. No doubt I'll be accused of victim blaming, and told (as I have seen already) that MNHQ are responsible if people have been sexually abused or ripped off, which I dislike. If someone wants to blame someone, blame anyone who trolls, and if you believe someone has acted criminally, involve the police if you were affected. Blaming MNHQ for this is unfair and a bit childish, IMHO.

I have tried again. Sorry about the fucked up formatting.

Blingy great post.

People donated money because they thought HQ backed the person asking for donations.

I would think it is the referencing to the details of the situation.

You're right about the other stuff though..!

I think we have to make general points rather than referencing specific happenings.

I've donated money/bought yarn for Woolly Hugs on more than one occasion. You don't get much more 'Mumsnet endorsed' than that.

However, I've never given more than I can afford to lose, and if it turned out (unlikely!) that it was all a huge scam, I wouldn't blame MNHQ. They've acted in good faith with the info they had.
I'd bland the scammers.

Blame

The MN guidelines themselves state:

"Unfortunately, it's not always immediately obvious whether a poster is, in fact, a troll. We all tend to be a bit suspicious of new folks posting things of a sensitive or inflammatory nature, but we would rather Mumsnetters erred on the side of giving folks the benefit of the doubt, and risked being made to look a bit foolish once in a while, than pounce on someone who may turn out to be genuinely in need of help. We hope you agree.
That said, we do advise all our members to be aware that not everyone on t'internet is who they say they are, and that, although we're awed daily by the astonishing support our members give each other through life's trickier twists and turns, we'd always caution anyone never to give more of themselves to another poster, emotionally or financially, than they can afford to spare"

How can it be any clearer?

Wellerr. I agree but the key thing is "with the info they had"

And that's the nub of this issue

WH is not comparable. You can see where your money is going for one.

passive. If that was all that hq had posted we wouldn't be here

Here as in with this shitstorm still going on

An aside to mumsnetters, I have said repeatedly over the last few days that I believe the poster in the thread concerned was exactly who they said they were. Mumsnet believe this too, as do other posters. Think for one moment before you post whether you can afford to be sued for defamation and slander before you throw accusations around, especially those posters who were naming the couple concerned or responding after they had been named.

I believe that he is who he said is too and this is excellent advice. A major problem on MN is that individuals cannot delete their own posts. If the threads had remained so would the threat of legal action - which may still be possible I am afraid.

No, if people hadn't got over invested and given personal details and money to some dude online we 'wouldn't be here.'

Stop looking for someone else to blame. It's so milennial.

It's difficult without being specific isn't it. As a general discussion I have never seen MNHQ confirm anyone is "real" as they simply can't. How can they? Occasionally they will say things like "this poster has been around for a number of years" or "we have no reason to believe this person is a troll" and the key thing is reason to believe. Proof etc.

I have seen MNHQ posts on recent threads and they haven't said anything to endorse or vouch for anyone. All they can do is say whether or not they have evidence to the contrary, and this is a forum - how could they? In the absence of people forwarding cast iron proof - which hasn't happened recently. If someone receives an abusive message but doesn't pass it on, MNHQ can do nothing as they can't prove anything. Gut feelings like "this person is so obviously trolling it's laughable" can't get stuff deleted - all MNHQ can do is refer people to the guidelines.

Do people really expect the owners of an Internet forum to be able to tell posters that other posters are exactly who they say they are? Or do people expect to use their own common sense and bear in mind any of us could be anyone at all, and act accordingly especially where our personal data or finances are involved?

I thought hq were going to come back this morning with an update?

*millennial. Sorry PC.

I think in this particular case posters for carried away with themselves (even though some posters tried to point out they should safeguard themselves and were deleted for troll hunting ) because the thread had gone on for so long and had the backing from HQ.

@WellErrr, I reckon those woolly hugs scammers have been playing the long game, and have been spending the money that you (and I) have sent them on wine and cocaine. Probably never been near a wool shop in their lives....

I am a bit thick it seems because i dont understand what the hell is going on.
I followed all the threads and the resulting fall out and i dont get it !
Is it possible to explain clearly and concisely whether the story was true and the op legit !
Or is that not possible ?

I would also question why some posts from X were allowed to remain in the first place, on the grounds of privacy and taste

I'd agree with this from Gary

I've often reported OPs who post very revealing details of (mainly) children - sometimes with images - who are unable to consent to such exposure on a major, public forum. I personally think these are breaches of privacy, and this trend troubles me across all social media.

@flapjackfairy no, that is not possible anyone who did would be deleted and likely banned

Ok thanks Nautical. I will carry on being confused then !