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
Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

Original poster

I'd like to chat about the convenience of your deletion policy to rewrite history MNHQ

180 replies

HoneyDragon · 07/08/2017 15:02

Convenient deletions so that your own posts go too that's becoming common practise too. After NYE you probably mised not to do that or edit retrospectively as you agreed it was unprofessional.

Yet again we are seeing cases where one member of HQ states something then another comes and contradicts it. Are you not a little embarrassed about how incompetent you look of late?

Hopefully your advertisers aren't looking to hard at the site at present? Or is that why you don't want them to see you struggling?

Even your deletion messages have no resemblance to the context of the thread? I think the majority of incorrect speculation falls at HQs feet on the whole. Rather than site users.

OP posts:
Puzzledandpissedoff · 07/08/2017 17:09

Just over two hours so far ... anyone running a book on how long this one will last? Hmm

CronnyRash · 07/08/2017 17:10

Previously when they've obviously dropped the ball they apologise and take positive steps

They've not really ever done this.

KatherinaMinola · 07/08/2017 17:10

Yes, I remember threads where they'd delete the OP's entire posting history but leave a MNHQ statement so you could see what had happened. This new approach is very unhelpful.

KatherinaMinola · 07/08/2017 17:11

There have been occasions where they've admitted that they've probably made a mistake.

SerfTerf · 07/08/2017 17:11

The gist of the MN statement was that they couldn't definitively ID anyone. That the "individual" in question had offered documents and third party references as bona rides but they weren't going to get into the business of attempting definitive IDs.

"Don't give more financially or emotionally" still applies and is the best advice. They WILL be changing their policy on crowdfusites and removing all links to non registered charities in most cases.

The threads won't be reinstated.

They won't comment any more and will delete anyone who does refer specifically to events.

I think that's a pretty accurate rendering.

KatherinaMinola · 07/08/2017 17:12

Probably a good thing to change the policy on non-registered charities and crowdfunding.

Mychildcouldnotbreaatfeed · 07/08/2017 17:15

To be fair to hq. This one is different because there's a real person in the middle of it and a real death and a real wee boy and husband.

And at this point we don't know who was posting here it isn't clear.

But. And I know I keep saying it.

Mumsnet hq came on the threads and posted that they had gone above and beyond to check him out and as far as they were concerned he was legitimate.

AND they moved thread that was all about a crowd funding personal begging page to the CHARITIES NOTICE BOARD

And they left it there for a very protected period of time.

They have now said that the charity thing won't happen again. But they are gaslighting those of us who remember what was said on the threads and making out like they never said they had checked him out gone above and beyond ( and iirc phoned him) and he was legit.

Mychildcouldnotbreaatfeed · 07/08/2017 17:18

My deletion message from my we believe you thread.

Hq. The recollection you are trying to foist on us here. The history you want us to believe. It's wrong. That's not what happened. You are wrong.

I'd like to chat about the convenience of your deletion policy to rewrite history MNHQ
Mychildcouldnotbreaatfeed · 07/08/2017 17:19

You did definitively vouch for him.

You did.

I saw it others saw it. and two and two do not make 5.

CronnyRash · 07/08/2017 17:23

I'm suprised people haven't realised that HQ do this, it's happened at least one other times i can remember, where they twist what happened so they are in the right.

deckoff · 07/08/2017 17:25

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MadamePomfrey · 07/08/2017 17:25

It doesn't seem like anything is going to change from all this though dose it.

CronnyRash · 07/08/2017 17:26

It doesn't seem like anything is going to change from all this though dose it.

It helps that more and more people know about it.

Mychildcouldnotbreaatfeed · 07/08/2017 17:27

This isn't about him soecific

I just would like them to say "yes we did say that and we went too far in legitimising him and we will change our policies so it doesn't happen again"

ChampagneTastes · 07/08/2017 17:31

This is all being handled really badly.

NorthernLurker · 07/08/2017 17:36

It's always the same. It was the same with moldies, it was the same with dizzymare and CVQ and every other troll. HQ would really like it NOT to have happened so they pretend it hadn't.

Dlpdep · 07/08/2017 17:39

I am just shaking my head in disbelief at this whole situation. People giving money to an online scam? People who gave their personal phone numbers out and received sexually explicit messages as a result? Are you people living in the real world?

I moderate on a different forum, and let me tell you that there is nothing that you can do to verify the identity of a poster short of ask them a few questions and make a decision based on their replies. MNHQ are not the FBI or Scotland Yard, they don't have access to classified information.

Take a course on internet safety and protecting yourself online. Don't fall victim to internet scams again - be they millions of USD sitting in an account just waiting for you to release them or something on a much smaller scale as this was.

But take some personal responsibility for your own naivety. MNHQ did not 'make' anyone put their hand in their pockets, or give out their personal information. This is not their fault, and consistently creating thread after thread about it is not going to make it any more of their fault.

I get that people were personally invested in this and it a slap in the face when faced with the reality of it, but looking for someone else to blame is not the answer.

RolfNotRudolf · 07/08/2017 17:46

I don't honk the "genuine" hospice JG page has now gone - an I correct?

SerfTerf · 07/08/2017 17:46

Dip everyone who was in the fan club has melted into the walls, so there's no point lecturing them here. They're probably off in their new place.

"MNHQ cannot vouch for or verify people" would make a much clearer message I think.

It's glaringly clear that a lot of people are NOT web savvy and are crediting MNHQ with too many powers. That's why they take reassurances as to someone's identity a bit TOO seriously, despite the caveat MNHQ includes every time.

RolfNotRudolf · 07/08/2017 17:47

I'll try again.
I think the apparently genuine JG page to the hospice has now gone - am i correct?

NorthernLurker · 07/08/2017 17:47

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Mychildcouldnotbreaatfeed · 07/08/2017 17:48

Hache Q need to take on board the fact that people were taken in by their statement on the thread saying that they had gone above and beyond to verify that poster

KatherinaMinola · 07/08/2017 17:48

"yes we did say that and we went too far in legitimising him and we will change our policies so it doesn't happen again"

Yes, I think that's what needs to happen. MNHQ have changed policies as a result of lessons learned before.

Of course ordinary posters should also be circumspect on the internet.

SerfTerf · 07/08/2017 17:48

It's gone Rolf.

CoolCarrie · 07/08/2017 17:48

That's where you are wrong Dip, the MN hq posted, in black & white, that they " had gone above and beyond" I quote. They do have a responsibility to the posters to own up to their mistakes, especially when they are soo very quick to pull up, and ban posters.