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.

You will, of course, make exceptions (as in SWMNBN) when it threatens to hit you in the pocket.

So are you signing here Justine??

Well, it's true, isn't it?

I suspect that if the McCanns sued MN for libel, Mumsnet would take the same stance as they did with SWMNBN.

So we will have to stick to posting our dissent on the dubious threads, and inundating MNHQ with comments via the red exclamation marks?

good call Mumsnet.

Erm, well yes Dinosaur you could argue we took the soft option with GF - the alternative was shutting down the site (not that great for free speech) and losing our homes (potentially) but then I did say we weren't up for death either (sorry).

We do make other exceptions too - we delete things that break our abuse policy.

or just plain ignoring them!

works for me (on thewhole)

and i get the voltaire point tbh. they do have a right to say it... I have the right not to read it.

and to say i think people doing it are {searches for right words}... behaving badly.

i should be a diplomat, me. seriously. ive missed my calling.

littlelapin, I would argue that they should exercise more, rather than less, editorial control, and delete all the Madeleine threads anyway

but I know that is a minority view

Purposely haven't read any of the threads and this one is too long to read it all, so in response to the title am signing in (and fervently hoping haven't missed something imperative in not reading it all!)

In our humble opinion the best way to protest against distasteful posts is to argue why they are distasteful on the thread - who knows? you might win some folk round - has happened a lot in the past. That said we recognise that this can be a fairly exhausting and sometimes futile process and we understand that some would rather just avoid altogether.

But if we started shutting down everything we found distasteful - where on earth would we draw the line - and do you really want HQ to make those calls anyway (do you know what we're really like)?

thats what gets me too - opening in the news or active convo's and seeing so many of the same thread.

not to mention the thing about wanting to keep a roof over your head, etc.

i think this new selective thing macwhatsit they say will come in soon will alleviate the repetativeness of some stories.

if it makes you squirm, Justine, have you been on to make that feeling known to them? (i really don't know that answer to that, i've only glanced at the thread). if not, why not?

and if the answer is that it's exhausting, dispiriting, pointless and - because it almost always ends off with both parties being utterly obnoxious - in poor taste given that what we are talking about is the likely death of a four-year-old child, then i fear your natural home is on this thread.

all we are doing is saying to those who are salivating over the latest Sky News half-truth, as Lapin so succinctly put it, 'just because we're not telling you you're wrong, it doesn't mean we think you are right'.

it could be argued that if she did it would be an abuse of authority giving influence to the partic views allowed to be aired - although not a firm policy.

whilst i agree with the emerged answer for signing this thread - i think the title is badly worded and gives rise to confusion.

some poeple are signing becuase they dont agree with them - and posting on the threads saying " i dont agree with you"

some are signing becuase they think they should be removed completely

some are signing becuase they want mumsnet to do something

its not clear - but it ends up being rolled into one

Hi Aitch,
No we haven't "been on to them" behind the scenes because folks are allowed to post things that make us squirm, so noone's broken any rules. And were I a regular poster, I very much suspect I would be on this thread (Who knows I might be already?), which as we've said you have every right to have started.

I tried, repeatedly and in a reasonable tone of voice, to point out that many of the posts were, to put it mildly, unkind and based on gossip and rumour. Didn't see any of the obsessives taking a blind bit of notice. Most charitable interpretation is that the 'story' had run away with them and they were incapable of standing back a bit and thinking 'what am I doing'. Or remembering what it was all about.

Although why I should be charitable to a bunch of people who were throwing stones with gusto I do not know.

MN has deleted offensive posts and whole threads in the past. Don't see what's so special about the McCann ghouls that they should be given protected status. Freedom of speech cuts both ways - if they are free to get their kicks at the McCanns' expense, I don't see why those who object to them aren't free to post whatever we like on those threads too - bumping them to 1,000 included.

McEdam makes a very good point - some posters do seem immune to argument and just keep posting the same old bollocks over and over again. That's where Justine's argument falls down.

fair play on the thread title, as i said yesterday lunchtime... tbh i didn't think it would be such a long thread. although i am totally heartened by the number of people who have appeared on it, many of whom haven't been using MN as much recently.

it's not beyond the ken of Justine et al to go onto those threads using different log-ins, i'd be curious to know if they had done already. and i suppose i'd also ask if not, why not?

although personally i do think that her going on as JustineMN to say 'is this really necessary?' might give them pause. sometimes i do think a little guidance is needed, i suppose. becuase judging by the 'HAH!' of contentment that spread over them when they heard that bumping the threads was deemed out-of-order, they do take what MNHQ says seriously.

in fact,i think that sabotage message was missed opportunity on that score. but hey, anyway, it's not my site, it belongs to MNHQ, they can do what they like.

No one is obsessive or getting kicks in, there have been developments in the case where the mother has been accused of doing harm to her own child. The whole topic is ghastly and uncomrehensible. Its not those that want to discuss it thats the problem, its the way the case has gone.
I for one do not suspect them, but there are some that do. Of course the portuguese police also feel there was reason enough to have detained them and questioned them at such length. No smoke wihout fire you might say.
I hope to god they are innocent, but none of us know for sure. It may turn out they are indeed guilty. At this point we simply do not know.

I note there are none of the offending threads in active convos currently.
Perhaps because Sky news is spewing out new snippets about nothing, and this has held their attention.
But hopefully because they have had pause for thought.
We shall see.

sorry, x-posted with Justine. i didn't mean that you should have warned them or anything, not at all.
it's just that you said that the best way to deal with these people is to argue on the thread, so coupled with your acknowledgment that it made you squirm, i wondered if you'd added your voice (anon or otherwise) to the naysayers.