If you (still) feel the need to discuss Moldies, please do it here so folks can hide this if they want to.

[LittleDonkeyCarrieMaryMumsnet]

Well hopefully the title says it all. There's been a suggestion, and we agree, that as we did with Baby P and the Mc Canns we just have one thread where anyone who feels they still have anything to add on this subject can post and those who'd rather move on can hide it away.

It feels strange to put this thread in site stuff as we are definitely not wanting to encourage further discussion of Moldies (we have presents to wrap too you know ) but we weren't sure where else to put it.

We will delete any new Moldies threads that are started, so please feel free to report them in case we miss any (what with wrapping the presents and all...)

And if you do want to carry on the discussion please remember that Mumsnet's here to make everyone's lives easier and not the reverse, and that Christmas is a time of goodwill to all mumsnetters past, present and future

Thanks,
MNHQ

Agree with Marina - it's not even a well-thought-out or cleverly written 'non story'!

just read it online - appalling journalism and they should issue an apology.

if you read MN without logging in, it is hard to attribute correct posters with their posts, which woul explain why everyone's quotes got attributed to the poster 'below' them on the thread IYSWIM.

parunmp - that's utter bollox I looked up the quote that has been wrongly attributed to the Rev and she didn't post anywhere NEAR to Diors post -

ok, sorry, didn't say that was a fact, just said it might explain the horrifically bad journalism......!

They misquoted me too! Just to clarify! Not sure who said what I supposedly said.

and VT's comments (posted 4 times in succession ) were no where near VS's name..........

sorry x posts again their Parump =

Nnope think it's just shockingly bad journalism, being logged out and less clear posters names no excuse

dear lord, please don't think I am making excuses for the half-wits who decided this was newsworthy and/or wrote it! I was more trying to illustrate that I don't think the person who wrote it is a MNetter.

no, no! I know what you mean!! Here, have some chocolate!

Message withdrawn

So actually they have mis-quoted everybody?

Rev if you are known in real life on these boards and that swearing malarkey might make people think less of you in your real life you have an absolute right, under the Defamation Act 199? to an apology from the Independent.

Perhaps the Independent could publish a Mumsnet apology thread?

I would suggest MNHQ makes the approach to the Independent's editor. We don't like sloppy journalism at Mumsnet, do we? We have standards.

I think that's a very good idea, Swedes. I imagine they're unwilling to alienate anyone from their demographic at the mo.

Justine? Is this something that you could ask for? Not critting the story partic, just the misattribution?

Does the Independent have a Readers' Editor like what the Guardian does?

Swedes really does know about Everything. Between her and Mrs Badger you pretty much have the sum of human knowledge.

''Dear Sir. My name is licklekittensflashingtheirfestivetits and I wish to protest in the strongest terms at the gross misrepresentation I have received at the hands of your organ. I wish to clarify that I said that all moldies were fucking fuckery cunt-flaps. I did notsay that I secretly wanted to be one.
Yours sincerely
etc etc''

Swedes, is the line "ever-so-slightly self-satisfied online chat forum" defamation as well? That's the bit I'm raging about!

I do think there's a chance that people are taking this a bit too seriously.

Don't you?

Try to explain it to someone who's not involved in RL and you will see just how bonkers the whole thing sounds.

I am not going to tell anyone in rl about it because I will sound like a 5 year old.

can someone link to original thread - i really don't get this!