How long does it take for a private message to be passed on and does mumsnet always pass them on?

[northernrefugee39]

I used cat two days ago I think, and the person I sent the message to hasn't received it, (they have since emailed me)
Why would that be?
We have both paid our £5.00, I would hope that means a private message would be received.

If you bang a drum hard enough, it breaks. You've broken it, move on.

so some are more equal than others

Oh bollix, the Neanderthals threatening physical harm to Cod and her family were not threatening legal action against mn.
It is unfortunate that there is a Steiner looney devoting his life to causing trouble and curtailing free speech but I for one (and I'm guessing there are TONS of others) really would prefer if mn was able to continue for the use, entertainment and support it offers to the majority of its users.

Could you not just start your own site (for Steiner stuff, I mean, not suggesting you leave MN! I've read some of your posts and they're extremely enlightening )

That way you could post exactly what you want. Or a yahoo group?

Fair enough Carmemere, Northern and I just want to see what exactly this legal threat is and if it's actually genuine.

If it is genuine we want to see what can we do about it, as the man himself I have since found out, plays this game rather a lot on the web. We are both very upset and angry that he has chosen mn as a target.

northernrefugee - I understand that you feel very strongly about steiner stuff.

But this is a forum for discussing ALL parenting issues (and some other stuff as well) and it would be a real pity if, due to someone taking legal action against the site itself, we lost our mumsnet.

Justine is right, she doesn't know who is telling the truth. Anyone with a hole in their arse can think that they know, and it may seem completely and utterly obvious to you, me or the neighbour's dog, but nobody except the actual person concerned can KNOW the truth, so don't take exception to what she said, she was not calling you a liar, she was saying that mumsnet is not taking sides on this one because, if you're picking your battles, this one's yours, not ours.

The cod situation was entirely different, personal threats were made against a person in REAL LIFE! If this happens to you on mumsnet I suggest you contact MNHQ and the police immediately.

barking, I really can understand MNHQ's position on this.

Your fight to put your views about Steiner across is doubtlessly a valid and important one, but do you really expect the MN owners to risk this site and their livelihoods over it?

Especially when they cannot validate the authenticity of the information given by either side.

I am surprised there is not a site where all ex-Steiner parents and others concerned about the subject can meet to discuss their experiences, and provide support.

Might it be worth looking into setting one up - perhaps with membership requirements so you can monitor those with access to it? Or even having a Yahoo chat group to start with?

You could keep an eye out on MN for parents requesting help or advice re Steiner, and direct them to the other site/group.

The threat of legal action would be lessened, and I expect the level of support each person receives would be greater.

Just a thought, made with good intentions.

I agree with the Humph, you can set up your own group on yahoo.

Scary- it was barking talking about cod- I know the Steiner thing hasn't overlapped into real life- but the person involved at one point was posting my name and refusing to stop, as a sort of threat i suppose- there's no other reason someone would do that is there? At one point he posted " I see you everywhere" - I felt threatened anyway...

Humphrey- there are yahoo groups which are very helpful and supportive.
What you suggest- about keeping an eye out for people asking about Steiner here on Mumsnet and pointing them in that direction is exactly what I did- pointed people to helpful websites. I was asked not to by towers, said I'd be banned if I did, presumably because the same person has threatened them again.

That's all that happened, and the whole thread was then deleted.

The whole exercise is to ensure there is no negative information easily available to innocent parents looking at the education.

btw- thanks humph I meant to say that first

Um, I have to say (and I'm not trying to get into a Steiner argument here) that I was following the Steiner threads and the man in question was named by other posters too, in fact first iirc.

Now I know he was under a different guise as a woman on the site, and was talking shite etc, but tbh it seemed like the whole thing degenerated into a personal point scoring battle, and MN is not the place for that. I agree parents should be able to come here for advice on any subject, but thats not what was happening re. Steiner. It was just confusing and wierd to anyone not directly involved, and was attracting posters to MN who had their own personal axes to grind.

Fact is, MNHQ are responsible legally for what is said on here. Its up to them what level of risk they are prepared to take in order for posters to have freedom of speech, and they have obviously decided here that its too high.

Anarchy- yes I agree- the personal stuff was irritating, and mumsnet isn't the place for it.
I think when people from the US who knew of this person's tactics, (that he was apparently renound for trying to stop critical information about Steiner waldorf, and has apparently been at it for years) came on, past incidents took over.
It also became overly wordy and intricate; I was getting lost too.

Personally, I think it's a real shame it has come to this; information should be open, as should people's own experiences.

Well, more than a shame.

I'm thinking of getting legal advice too.

From what I remember from the last legal fiasco, the problem lies with who is responsible for any potentially libellous comments. As the law stands, it's Mumsnet, not the poster. Therefore, MN would understandably worried about another legal battle and have to protect themselves.

"information should be open, as should people's own experiences." Yes, you're right it should, but you can't really blame MNHW for not wanting to put their houses etc on the line again can you?

No- I obviously realise that mumsnet are understandably anxious not to go through that,; in this case it seems easy to play on this though.

But I would have thought it was simple to ask which bits they actually think are libellous? Which actual posts? If the person said, it is libellous to say Steiner has racist writings for instance, or it is libellous to say the schools deceive people about anthroposophy when recruiting, it would make more sense. It would be a solid basis from which to start.

But these threats don't seem to be specific- where as the last case was fairly specific wasn't it?

It seems so easy to threaten a discussion, for the recipient to say, oh, ok we'll delete it then.

"which bits they actually think are libellous" Except they did this the last time and deleted them. It didn't work.

The problem lies not with MN but with the law as it stands. The only way round it is to have your own website so you assume 100% of any potential risk and are better placed to respond to any threats.

Oh- I thought it was a build up last time, culminating in that one famous phrase which is what clinched it.
So- the law implies that anything negative, defamation etc, is wrong, until proved otherwise? That's not British law is it?
Innocent until proved otherwise and all that....

I don't blame Mumsnet for keeping out of it at all. I'm afraid freedom of speech was quietly phased out some time ago in the UK and they are not in a position to change that.

As for innocent until proved guilty etc, just look around MN (and anywhere) and you will see people saying "but if felt racist/sexist/etc to the victim then it was. It doesn't matter what they intended" so no one believes in that any more and no one wants free speech either - not for other people anyway.

WE ARE TIRED OF BEING 2ND CLASS MN CITIZENS

WE WANT COMPS!

OverseasmumsnetteRsunIteForfaIrtrEatment

"the law implies that anything negative, defamation etc, is wrong, until proved otherwise? "

No, I meant the law which says that MN are responsible for what is posted on their site rather than the poster (something like that). Going to court to prove that statements are not libellous, defamatory etc would cost them a lot of money, therefore if the person the statements are about says that they're going to sue for libel, MN are not going to faff around deciding who's telling the truth. Once bitten twice shy!

Thanks for replying dragon- I don't mean to sound stupid about this; I knew that- that mn was liable rather than the poster; but liable for something quite so general, or , unknown.
As far as I know, the person threatening is threatening about Steiner- who is dead, anthroposophy, which is a belief system, and Steiner schools; but the fact is, know one knows what the person is actually threatening about- it just seems to be a general threat, which apparently has been used all over the place when anyone posts negative stuff.
A kind of knee jerk reaction rather than a substantial claim.
These are the emails that mumsnet are being bombarded with
"If I see her posting promotion of libel at Mumsnet once more, I won't tell you about it, but ask Percy Bratt of Bratt and Feinsilber in Sweden to contact you in cooperation with the legal representatives of The Steiner Waldorf Schools Fellowship in the UK and Ireland(www.steinerwaldorf.org/index.html), about your negligent way of allowing libel to be published at Mumsnet and the one who is the most fervent publisher of it to continue to publish at Mumsnet."

"Promotion of libel"
So it must be something he objects to on one of the links I suppose, one of the websites; but then why doesn't he threaten them with legal action?

I stand by everything I've written about what happened to us. Everything.