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.

And are you not now bullying people off threads? Are all McCann threads now out of bounds? If I started one would I be exempt as a regular? Am I not now allowed to discuss the case on Mumsnet?

Sorry, but I simply do not understand the message you are all trying to get across. You all seem to be batting from different angles here.

I am having my cake and eating it - posting here to state my disaproval of idle specualtion (even if it is spread by the mainstream media) and disagreeing with specualtion where I see it on other threads.

Do you have a problem with that then Rhubarb?

Im still confused.

best if I stay away I think

Rhubs I think it is jsut the gossip stuff that everyone is bored with - gossip/no news.

REAL NEWS is fine.

IMO

It's just bumping/sabotage which MNHQ have asked not to happen.

I hate to say it but you can't have it both ways - MN getting more publicity and MN attracting more new members

And so it goes. Tis business after all.

can someone explain slowly to tiredemma and i please???

if a thread started on MMC which contained new and substaniated fact, personally I would be unlikely to comment either way. On a thread where I beleive people are taking one media report as the truth (over another which contradicts it but which they haven't read), then at the very least I reserve the right to point out the alternative report. I don't consider that to be bullying

Kewcumber, my problem is this:

People are saying that they don't want McCann threads on Mumsnet and have signed a list to say that their silence does not mean they agree with what is being said.

Those same people however, are not being silent as they are posting on McCann threads.

The threads are being bumped and as well as registering their distaste, posters are posting little comments of their own such as "weirdos" and "freaks".

I believe this is censorship of a kind and wondered if I were to want to discuss any aspect of the McCann case, if I would be subjected to the same treatment the newbies are being subjected to.

Don't get me wrong, I already said that I found the views being posted about the case vile. But I am confused by the way you are all going about it and I guess this is what I disagree with.

Mercy said it much more succintly.

It isn't discussing facts that I object to, it is the constant wallowing in the story, picking apart the tiny snippits of gossip, and putting forward their ever nastier ideas of what happened.

No-one knows what happened. So what sort of sicko gets their jollies from playing miss marple over it?

They are not the police in this case, they are not searching for evidence, they are enjoying a 'game'. But it isn't a game. It is a real person,, with a real family and friends who will be upset by all of this nastiness. And for what reason? What good are they doing? None.

they are just wallowing in the shit. And then act all surprised when we complain about the smell

not sure I consider myself part of the old guard/clique/whatever but am slightly confused about why that seems to be a derogatory term now and that their views are less important.

Isn't the point that at least as many (and probably many more) poeple don't like the speculation as those who avidly post on every new thread. Is there some kind of handicap rating for those who have been posting longer now?

REGISTERING MY DISTASTE

rhubarb, I do think it's important that anyone,(new or not new to mumsnet) who looks at a McM thread realises that lots of people here find the speculative discussion distasteful.

I think there should be some mention of this at the beginnnig of each McC thread and possibly a link to this discussion. It is rare that so many people are choosing not to post on a topic that is making active convos so often. And in the next weeks it could get worse with the media hysteria.

I think it would be good if anyone opening a McM thread is made aware of the difference of opinion amongst mumsnetters. A statement, not a judgement.

This isn't compromising anyone's freedom of speech but is is putting a more balanced view of the site across IMO

But LL, people are posting

"registering my distate" - you are all weirdos

Would you agree with that? Is that the way to tackle all of this?

sorry that post was a bit of an aside - but it does confuse me.

tigermoth, I believe that is something MNHQ should do and I agree with you.

But I don't believe that posters should take this task on themselves. It's not being handled very well atm.

isn;t it the best of a load of bad choices? Don;t post on the thread and let it ramble on endlessly with a few brave souls giving a dissenting opinion allowing people (including the posters themselves) to beleive they are in the majority; get dragged into the argument and feel that you are feeding the beast; register your distaste and be accused of bulying/bumping the thread.

hang on rhubarb, yo udidn't like the silent protest, you though it a waste of time, a clique

Now yo don't like the 'I regester my distate'.

Fair enough, that is your opinion.

What do you think we can do to regester our objection to these discussions? (honest question)

Rhubarb - you seem to favour one - I am currentl hovering around choice 2 and most on here are voting with their feet for choice three.

Seems quite in the spirit of freedom of speech to me.

**
Registering my distaste.
**

You weirdos.

By Gess.

No, I don't believe this is the right way to go about it. You cannot fight vile posters with vile posts yourselves.

Pot calling kettle.

MNHQ now know how we all feel, let them decide the best course of action.

Go on by all means and register your distaste, but fighting insults with insults is just a little pointless.

I think we should change "In The News" to "IN THE NEWS BBC ONLY NOT FCKING SKY NEWS PLEASE"

would that work