Qui tacet consentire videture... I want it to be understood by MNHQ and by guests to this site that my silence on the subject of the recent speculative threads does NOT condone their existence.

[Aitch]

Aitch.

Although I think the intentions via this thread are good, fair & true.

I agree with Custardo.

The journalists in question were probably told to get a feel of what 'ordinary' mums or 'ordinary' Brits felt about the subject. Which is one of the reasons that I have signed here.

Pious or not I agree with you BoingBoing.

Why do people seem to think the media (by which I assume they mean national newspapers) don't have their fair share of ghoulish rubberneckers on staff? And why this sense of ownership of Mumsnet? I can understand the owners minding how it is viewed in the press but why would a poster mind?

krazykoolkazza was quoted on yesterday's Guardian,cheesy. MN is quoted all the time these days.Pisses me off - do they seek permission? like fuck they do. If I were not a MNer I would assume - from the quoes in the press I have read - that MNers are a bunch of rabid stone throwing in bred thickies.

it was all over Any Questions/Answers? yesterday as well . rather hoped R4 might be giving this speculative nonsense short shrift. Yesterday i was shouting at the radio.
today I sign
bazza

I've occasionally recommended mumsnet to people. I'd hate for anyone I knew to think that I thought that those threads were in any way acceptable.

I'll sign here.

That last post was somewhat disingenuous, to say the least, haychee. It very much reads as if you do want another argument.

precisely donnie.

But to stop journalists taking quotes from MN on anything sensitive, we would have to have a list of things you can & cannot discuss.

I will admit, there was an earlier post on here stating that the poster can't have MN as her home page anymore because of the swearing and her 10 year old daughter seeing it.

I always swear on here and I was most embarrassed by your post as mine can't read yet. You are right.

Point taken though. After 10pm and drink has been taken may be a tad different.

The stuff I read in the Guardian wasn't offensive! Or have you got a link to some that was?

Me too BoingBoing - I don't want threads pulled. Not posting on them, or leaving the site for a bit, isn't a pointed enough statement IMO.
I really think MNHQ need to know how embarassed some of us are, who've put a lot into this site over the years as well as getting lots of support (eg you on the subject of education, MB, and you on the subjects of immunisations/SN/ASD gess), to see some of the speculative posts about the McCann family.

I don't think there's anything wrong with enjoying a website that isn't suitable for 10 year olds. I don't have BBC news as my home page any more because I like to filter information to my children. But that doesn't mean the BBC is at fault.

NKF, have you ever seen my posts there is a lot of f**king in them at times , to be honest during the day there is no need for this (or night really).

No Mrs Marvel but it was phrased in the sort of way that makes it sound like mn is a haven of pitch fork wielding harpies, which ime isn't the case.

Have you read the threads in question UCM? Until yesterday when I clicked on one I would have been arguing the same as you (haven't read them up until then). But what I read went beyond good taste- it was utterly vile. It went beyond what should be said. Generally self censorship on here works. For some reason on the thread I read (and I understand there were others in the same vein- I'm not seeking them out) it didn't.

Haven't opened a McCann thread so far ...
Have only read aitch's title (& that she started this
Signed.

And thank you aitch

UCM I've posted once on the MM topic, at the start where I said 'There but for the grace of god go I'

To my knowledge, I've not posted on other, for the reasons I've given. I clicked on a thread yesterday, by mistake, and was sickened by what Isaw.

Good post, Marina.

I've become saddened by reading this thread, b/c of the well-known names I haven't seen here much lately, some of whom it seems have deliberately been staying away b/c they've found things so unpleasant.

nkf you've made it perfectly clear that you only pop in and out of MN, but some of us spend a lot of time on here and consider this a virtual community that we're part of. isn't that enough? it made me cringe when i saw that 'koolkrazykazza of MN' was being quoted in the Guardian (and not just at the shite name). so i wondered how many other people might be feeling the same but not wanting to get into it again on the McCann threads. that's all.

that this has become more than a number of people signing their name etc is due for the most part to your continued questions, ironically enough. and actually, this is boring me now... if you don't 'get' it, just forget it. it's not that important.

for my part i've been very glad to see that there does seem to be a large number of people who are hostile to the miss marple types but who aren't prepared to engage with them. that makes me feel like the whole of MN isn't going to the dogs, and that's good news for me as i don't want to leave.

yes quite - well put rantinghousewife.

Been out all day today and wanted to say this yesterdsay but am not as eleoquent as aitch and co. So thank you and

Signed
FMV

I was about to post and explain the bit that made my flip, but tbh, I've posted it before, sickened myself by doing in, so decided not to.

To be honest, I find the slight, shall we say, abrasiveness, of MN amusing and enjoyably. The statement at the top of the home page about support and cuddles and we're all mums together is just so much marketing guff I think. Any site that brings together a group of mothers and censors their conversations with a very light hand is going to see some fireworks.

Glad I've been of some help, Aitch.