Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk

Back to thread
Original poster

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.

16 replies

Aitch · 09/09/2007 11:47

Aitch.

Go to post
MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 10/09/2007 11:43

Having thought about it long and hard we do condone these threads existence (as you know) despite the fact that some of what's in them makes us squirm and despite the fact that, when the press quotes selectively from them, it makes Mumsnet look silly.

Still, we do believe in folks' right to say things we find distasteful and silly, even if it makes MN look distasteful and silly in the process. And, of course, we believe in others' right to disagree and disassociate.

Basically we're with Voltaire here (or at least it may not have been Voltaire but it's commonly attributed to him): "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." (Though perhaps not literally).

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 10/09/2007 11:52

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.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 10/09/2007 12:01

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)?

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 10/09/2007 12:22

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.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 10/09/2007 12:33

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.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 10/09/2007 12:40

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...

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 10/09/2007 12:44

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.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 10/09/2007 12:47

or a brothel

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 10/09/2007 13:55

Hi MB,
Nothing wrong with this thread - have said a few times that you've every right to it - even said I might have joined it were I a regular poster.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 10/09/2007 14:31

Hi BecauseImWorthIt,
There's something called Fair Use in copyright law - which allows published work can be selectively quoted. See here.

But thinking about it, we should perhaps drop the Guardian Reader's Editor a line and suggest their quotes were not representative...

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 10/09/2007 17:39

Hi again,
Propose to send this letter to the Guardian (plse shout if you think it could be improved):

Dear Editor,
In the story ?Sympathy for beleaguered parents muted by jeers and suspicion? in Saturday?s Guardian, you included two quotes from the Mumsnet discussion boards in a paragraph that begun ?But on other sites popular sympathy appeared to slipping away from the McCann family.?:

?On Mumsnet yesterday a furious debate erupted between those hidden behind online pseudonyms. "I do think the McCanns have acted somewhat oddly throughout this investigation - particularly the mother," commented Krazykoolkazza.? "I can't quite see it as natural for a mother in her position to make one of her immediate priorities in the days immediately following the disappearance of her daughter a visit to the Pope - without her remaining children."

This is not a fair representation either of how the Mumsnet community feels about the McCann case or the debate that has taken place on the site. In fact the majority of the membership has opted out of discussion about Madeleine McCann and her family, believing the extraordinary amount of speculation and media interest to be pointless, distasteful and ghoulish.

Many hundreds have signed up to a boycott that has been in existence since May. The initiator of the boycott, Blu, sums up how Mumsnetters feel:

?I have the utmost sympathy for the McCann family, and hope for a happy ending to their trouble. Meanwhile I am not happy about many aspects of the many [discussion] threads, and hearby resolve to completely boycott them by not clicking, not reading, nor responding (however horrible the views), and thus not adding to the circular and predictable route they take, no matter what quality of intervention is made. Clasp your right hand over your left Nork and repeat the boycott pledge after me!?

Justine Roberts and Carrie Longton
Co-founders
www.mumsnet.com

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 10/09/2007 18:15

Thanks for the input - we've dropped the clasp your norks ref. Have sent off just now but suspect too late for tomorrow. Here's what we sent:

Dear Editor,
In the story ?Sympathy for beleaguered parents muted by jeers and suspicion? in Saturday?s Guardian, you included two quotes from the Mumsnet discussion boards in a paragraph that began ?But on other sites popular sympathy appeared to slipping away from the McCann family.?:

?On Mumsnet yesterday a furious debate erupted between those hidden behind online pseudonyms. "I do think the McCanns have acted somewhat oddly throughout this investigation - particularly the mother," commented Krazykoolkazza.? "I can't quite see it as natural for a mother in her position to make one of her immediate priorities in the days immediately following the disappearance of her daughter a visit to the Pope - without her remaining children."

This is not a fair representation either of how the Mumsnet community feels about the McCann case or the debate that has taken place on the site. In fact the majority of the membership has opted out of discussion about Madeleine McCann and her family, believing the extraordinary amount of speculation and media interest to be pointless, distasteful and ghoulish.

Many hundreds have signed up to a boycott that has been in existence since May. The initiator of the boycott, Blu, sums up how Mumsnetters feel:

?I have the utmost sympathy for the McCann family, and hope for a happy ending to their trouble. Meanwhile I am not happy about many aspects of the many [discussion] threads, and hearby resolve to completely boycott them by not clicking, not reading, nor responding (however horrible the views), and thus not adding to the circular and predictable route they take, no matter what quality of intervention is made.?

Justine Roberts and Carrie Longton
Co-founders
www.mumsnet.com

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 10/09/2007 18:54

I know - loved Aitch's thread title too - but just thought it slightly overcomplicated the message, even for Guardian readers .

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 10/09/2007 19:01

Yes good idea VVVQ

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 10/09/2007 22:32

As posted on other thread (PSCMum's post was deleted for same reason - personal attack):

Hi Sophable and all.
First, Sophable we deleted your post because you called the members posting on this thread "WEIRDOS" which breaks our rules on personal attacks - no problem with your latest post where you make the same point but without the name calling.

To everyone, we reiterate that we don't disallow threads about Madeleine McCann because it's a valid discussion topic in our opinion. It is leading every news bulletin everywhere - it would be nonsensical to ban discussion entirely.

Neither do we disallow Mumsnetters' right to object to that discussion, say they find it distasteful whatever - we do ask everyone (whichever view they hold) to abide by our abuse policy (stay legal, avoid obscenties and personal attacks) and we do urge everyone to remain civil also. To quote the MN philosophy - we are here to make folks' lives easier - not the reverse. Generally shouting and hollering makes things more difficult.
Cheers,
MN Towers

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 10/09/2007 22:39

Ok am off to bed - so you can call eachother wierdos all you like.
Weirdos!

Watch this thread for updates

Tap "Watch" to get all the latest updates

End of posts

There are no more MNHQ posts on this thread

Back to thread