Advertisers pulling because of swearing

[Paffle]

Fuck me, MNHQ, is this true?

Top brands pull ads as Mumsnet users turn the air blue

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/934464e8-844f-11e7-aad7-35a38ccd3007

I completely get brands not wanting to be associated with racism, sexism, disablism etc - all of which are rightly banned on MN. But are people that bothered by swearing?

Please tell me you're not going to ban swearing, MNHQ!

OIKYWANK OIKYWANK OIKYWANK... Nobendedfuckhole!!!!!

I'm extending my vocabulary nicely.

I feel like social climbers, middle-class wannabes, and faux posh people have a problem with swearing.

Saucery no it wasn't me, it's a MN linky, which I expect they will be disabling very soon..

The trouble with swearing all the time is it loses any impact.

I feel like social climbers, middle-class wannabes, and faux posh people have a problem with swearing.

Is all of the UK rally so class obsessed or is it just the UK? I don't think prudishness about swearing has any real class distinction.

Or is it just mumsnet!

That was really btw. I wasn't trying to sound rally vair posh.

I'm not from the UK but just from what I read on here and from certain relatives, that's my impression. And it does seem very English!

The comments on that Times article are fucking hilarious. I can see the tweed and shillings from here

So advertisers won't advertise here because people say cunt but will happily advertise in the Sun with its page 3 or in the hate mongers the Daily Mail?

So NT doesn't want to advertise their wares to people who swear in an Internet forum.

Sort of shooting themselves in the foot a bit isn't ?

We are there customers are we not? I used to have an English Heritage membership. Maybe that's where the swearing are meant to spend their hard gained cash.

It's one of the most refreshing things about mn, real women . Real issues. Real solutions and real language.

Totally agree with the poster who said by venting on here we can let a lot of anger and frustration out that we maybe can't in real life.

I'm going to leave the last word to my dad.
He was determined I was going to be brought up anlady and apart from the odd bugger and bloody I never heard him swear more than that.
Then mum and I both got a job in a betting shop.

It was game over for my poor dad after that.

He was getting annoyed one day trying to get me and mum out of the house and in his annoyance , started to say ' stop piss...farting about.

Pissfart was born that day and mum and I never looked back . Dad lost.

My dad used to say that swearing was for those of limited vocabulary.

You knew by the 'level' of swear word as to how badly my father had injured himself in the shed, if it was a full blown cunt then my mother would always go and find his car keys for him for the inevitable stitches

Have you heard the amount of swearing on daytime radio 4? I don't know how they get away with it.

Being offended by swearing is nothing like being sexist, racist etc. That means that you are actively disliking someone. Swearing is just words. It's just a series of sounds that you have be taught to dislike. It's not like saying the n-word which is meant with hate for example. There is no difference between calling your annoying DH a wank badger and an unpleasant, dislikable pain in the behind. One you can say in front of children and one you can't the emotion and the sentiment are the same.

Two problems with this. If MN stop us swearing then I would take that as a serious censorship issue.
Secondly if they did censor us what difference would it make. If you read cnt then you read it as cunt don't you? You don't sit their scratching your head wondering what I meant do you? The voice in you head reads 'the Daily Mail are facist cunts' just the same as 'the Daily Mail are facist cnts'. So what is the point?

Hello all,
We've just responded to the Independent thus:

"We haven't been contacted by any advertisers with any concerns about swearing on Mumsnet and we have no plans to change our policy on allowing swearing on our forums. Mumsnet is after all a site for grown ups which people visit to get advice, support and sometimes to let off a bit of steam."

No plans at all to change our policy on swearing unless it became clear that a big majority of users wanted us to, which right now seems unlikely.

@JustineMumsnet well thank fuck for that then.

So the story was made up? What was all that balls about the National Trust and Confused.com if they haven't actually said anything about swearing?

Ha! Get em told @JustineMumsnet

Fucking brilliant news, Justine!

Well done to the Times on the fake news. Wankers.

The story is really annoying because it's not really about mn at all. The NT etc just buy ad space on the internet and have no control over where their ads appear. It's another excuse to bash us naughty ladies for not being meek and mild. The story being reported could have picked any number of sites to point the finger at for Bad language.

I'm glad the policy here hasn't changed - mn without swearing would be, well, unrecognisable these days. There was a thread called something like "Your expletive of choice" years ago, long since disappeared. It was full of excellent swearing ideas and acquired an extra frisson of nortiness when it was linked to by a minion of swmnbn as a reason why parenting and mn was going to hell in a handcart. And of course the glorious "Cunting Sainsburys" linked to earlier.

All that happens on other forums is you put in which is totally pointless. Fuck is fuck whether you write it fuck or fck. we all know what it means, it's no more or less offensive it's just a pain to type make believe way of saying you're not swearing when you fucking are!

So we can still say bad words?

Go on, say 'em Fekko, you know you want to!

It's just not any fun where you are allowed to. Like swearing in front of a nun.

@noblegiraffe

So the story was made up? What was all that balls about the National Trust and Confused.com if they haven't actually said anything about swearing?

The story wasn't so much "made up" as manufactured in my view. It was generated by a freelance journalist who contacted some brands with examples of swearing on Mumsnet next to their ads. These programmatic ads are bought via a third party and usually (though not always) are bought to reach a demographic rather than a specific site. I'm not sure any of the advertisers contacted actually then said they won't advertise on Mumsnet - more that they'd take a look at it - so the headlines are certainly spurious.

I'd imagine the said journo approached more than one paper with the story and the Times chose to run it. But it's a bit of a non-story imho.

Although I agree with those who've pointed out its a bit sexist. Suspect they think it's a story because of the "shock, horror, mothers have potty mouths" angle. Reminds me of when the Sunday Times ran an outraged piece about sex discussions on MN (as if Mother's ironically should be entirely chaste).