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.

agree with McAdam - it's like some grim groundhog day.

But if we allowed folks to bump things whenever they didn't like a thread then by rights anyone could bump anything that they found distastful to a close - maybe a thread about abortion say?

The McCann threads didn't break our rules - you could argue our rules aren't strict enough and we should delete things on the ground that they are ghoulish/ speculative/ distasteful etc. We think that's unworkable (where do you draw the line?) and don't really want to be the arbiters anyway (who are we to decide?). So that's why we let them stand.

It's not perfect and it's occasionally very uncomfortable - but we don't see a better way of running an open forum.

Bit late (as usual) but just wanted to thank you for this, too, Aitch.

Came back to Mumsnet yesterday after a bit of a break - and promptly scarpered off again when I saw that thread.

Glad to know I wasn't alone.

GOD HAYCHEE!!? Who are you to suspect them or not? you're not the portuguese judicial system, you're some silly little hausfrau with an over-active imagination.

(is this the sort of thing you were thinking of, Justine?)

Oh Haychee you are being disingenuous. People were loving posting the most lurid and distasteful speculation, condemning Kate McCann for not behaving how they claim they would behave in her shoes (God forbid). Treating it like the best thriller since 24 rather than the real case of a missing child.

And many of them aren't MNers, they aren't people who use this site for anything else other than getting their rocks off over this poor girl. Gruesome.

Not read all of this thread but in answer to the OP

NormaStanleyFletcher

silly little hausfrau ?!
Charming, thanks.

I now am only speculating...

about the reference of this thread on MN.

So I have remained silent hitherto, mainly as a result of this LO who is FINALLY napping when I can do things (or procrastinate on MN). But I applaud aitch's sentiments and eloquence.

i agree justine. tis the only way.

It still seems to me to create a double standard. Bumping threads to 1,000 means posting on them. Surely that's as much free speech as posting whatever bollocks someone has invented about the poor bloody McCanns?

Message withdrawn

Yes maybe we should have an "Is this really necessary?" stock response along with "We draw you attention to the MN philosophy" one.

We'll give it some thought...

and doesn't this come under the MN philosophy, given that the McCanns are parents?

That's the problem really.

Most people can discuss a topic in depth, whilst remaining respectful to others.

Some can't.

And when those who can't will not even consider taking on board the suggestions that they have gone too far, it becomes a catfight.

And then any hope of useful or meaningful debate or discussion is lost.

I don't want to have to scrap with people because they think it is acceptable to post some of the details that were on the recent thread.

But I will if there is no other option.

ach Aitch, dont get sucked in. ignore the ridiculous and persistant little... woman.

she, like a buzzing little bloodsucking bug of some sort, is annoying but will go away eventually. dab on some citronella or something.

Following on from Justine's post - I believe it is like most things in life - people can vote with their feet (or fingers in this case).

Some people choose to have a foot in both camps ie post on a mm thread and post on a thread insinuating they are against mm threads by their silence.

Apparently that isnt hypocritical or contradictory but I beg to differ. Suffice to say some mnrs would make cracking politicians..

Anyway, I do think bumping threads you dont agree with it pointless and childish. I also think some of the posters on the MM thread are thinking about the case far too much now and should leave it alone - but as ever, that's their choice.

i do agree, edam. much as i thought the bumping juvenile, those women were posting what they wanted to and expressing (albeit obliquely) an opinion, so are we not also obliged to defend their right to do so?

and agree with cod also. it might be silly but i just don't want people to think of MN as dailymailtwats.com. that's what the daily mail site is for.

Yes Cod, so do we worry about the reputation of MN - you can imagine the atmosphere chez Justine's wasn't great on Sat am when I picked up my Guardian (lazy reporting or bad editing - probably the latter).

One of the problem's is, if there's no dissenting voices on the unpleasant threads, it looks like there's no dissenting voices... but the truth is we are at the mercy of any journalist who wants to selectively quote anything - and there's not a lot we can do about that.

I agree with you cod. I was embarrassed by the quote from mumsnet in the grauniad .

Message withdrawn

good idea, justine.

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

or a brothel

Yes, hence Abby working there