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.

OJ I always have to read your posts twice because I am never sure if you mean them

Not totally silent either but always in support of The McCanns.
FoghornLeghorn

Sorry if I'm missing something.. or if I appear rude (I think I may do).. but who cares? I don't expect MNHQ or anyone else to give a rat's arse about my "individual opinion" on this.. so why should anyone else?? Why should anyone's silence or non silence need "noting"? Aren't we giving ourselves airs and graces here???

slim

Message withdrawn

The reason that we are posting is that when we have poseted on the threads that we find them revolting, we have been told, if you don't want to read them , don't click on the thread (I did so by mistake yesterday and was horrified at what I read)

To my mind this is akin to people saying, 'We are telling racist jokes, and if you don't want to listen, go away'.

I was so horrified at what posters on MN considered 'normal' behaviour. I wanted a way of showing that I disagree, that didn't invove wading through the vileness, and arguing with people who appeared to have left reason at the front door, when they looged on. people who were arguing sense on that thread were being shouted down.

Since MN disapproved of the bumping of the thread, this is a different, positive way of showing what we think.

Because there was an article in the Guardian the other day that had quoted some unsavoury quotes from a thread on here.

Thankyou, Aims, that is what I meant

och no, shs. MNHQ has said 'no more bumping threads out of existence' (fair enough btw), which rather led some of the more prolific Jessica Fletchers to triumphantly 'hah!' about their 'freedom of speech', and as you can see from this thread they clearly think they are representative of a majority view. not to mention the fact that the guardian yesterday quoted one of them as an MNer (which she is, of course).

so i don't know, i don't want people on MN, MNHQ and journos to think 'oh look, this divides neatly into pro and anti the mccanns' when the truth is more complicated.

the truth is that i do spend a lot of my time on here, i like our community and i don't like it being mis-represented because of some very vocal loons. if you think that's airs and graces, fair enough. maybe i just don't think that it's a bad thing to want to stand up and be counted.

But why would anyone assume that any unsavoury comments related to anyone other than the indiviuals who posted them??

Ok, your perogative and fair enough aitch.

shiny.... think Gina Ford!

no, not the unsavoury comments, the tacit consent to the continuing proliferation of the speculative threads. i think you've missed the point, SHS.

x-posted, shiny.

A heartfelt Marina signing here.
I've been that close to just leaving for for good over this whole revolting phenomenon.
And especial thanks Aitch for making it clear in the thread title that so many of us want MNHQ to know how we feel about this stuff proliferating on Mumsnet.

I never admit to anyone that I use MN. It is full of weirdo types.

GF-gate was a ridiculous farce though. Wasn't it? (Less so for MNHQ who had to fight a court case... but the issue as whole, which came about because of one person spitting the dummy in ridiculous fashion.) This is different surely; it's an issue where some people have posted what most consider outlandish and unwise "opinions" (if they even believe them themselves). If the press have run with them, surely most people (that will probably never visit Mumsnet anyway) would not assume that that "the whole of the Mumsnet community think that way".. that's just ridculous isn't it?

Signed
SpookyMadMummy

Have not posted on the threads, have read them, didn't like them much.

It is also entirely possible that I am green and naive however.. so bear with me, I'm not trying to be offensive I promise....

(And doesn't it suggest something negative to those who posted on any of the threads? Even if what they posted was in no way outlandish or offensive to anyone?)

Ah, Shiny, I wish I could be optimistic and agree with you. I think the press coverage of Mn quoting from some of these posts recently has done none of us any credit though.

I used to blame the Mothercare effect.

Now I do not know where they are coming from.

But I do know we have in scrapings of the barrel with regards to some of the new posters.

And it makes my skin crawl, to see how they carried on yesterday.

The one perticular poster you are referring to when she describes how the body could of been disposed of, works within these realms of possibility. She personally has dealt with these issues (3 times i believe) in her work life. She was merely trying to point out that it is possible the mccanns could be guilty, she was not saying they are guilty. Who can blame that particular poster for what she wrote when she has to live everyday working within such situations.

I do not believe they are guilty, but having been involved in that thread yesterday, my eyes have been opened as to how it could have been possible.

fleacircus