The MN Mail Column - what we think, and what we plan to do next... part 2

[whataboutthisone]

Firstly, I am a regular but have created a new name for this.

My thoughts about what I know so far:

1. In a much earlier post there was a discussion about a change in T&Cs and whether they are valid or not. Several years ago I took a company to court for a breach of their T&Cs. Their argument was that they had changed T&Cs and my complaint was therefore no longer valid. However, the judge said that because I had not specifically been asked to accept the new T&Cs, I was entitled to rely on the ones I had accepted and therefore I won my case.

1. I choose to post on MN in the knowledge that the details I give are probably just obscure enough to anyone I may know in RL who also posts, so that what I say still effectively remains private. However, that doesn't mean that the same could be said of, for instance, my mother, who reads the DM (!) There is probably just enough about my circumstances that would enable her to put 2+2 together. I would like the option to choose whether or not I let my Mum ( or anyone else in RL) in on certain areas of my life, and there is a real possibility that this hack, has taken that choice away from me.

1. I have never ( and now will never) post asking for advice, but I will also be very careful about offering advice in the future. I, along with many others, occasionally use examples from my life to explain where I am coming from. If I continue to do that, as I said earlier, it is possible that some people would be able to work out who I am. Now, I am not so big-headed as to believe that any advice I offer is worth taking, however, there are many fantastic posters on here who do give amazing and insightful advice based on their own experiences. It would be a real shame if that was to stop because they, like me, do not want to share some of those experiences with the folk they are close to in RL. It would also be a real tragedy if others were prevented from asking for help for the same reasons.

I am very disappointed that any MNer would feel it is acceptable to violate the trust we place in each other on this forum. I do not know who she is. I do not want to know who she is. But I hope she is hanging her head in shame for breaching the trust that has been placed in her by everyone whose words she has stolen to make a few bucks!

whataboutthis - that's not quite right. If a newspaper libelled somebody and a judge awarded damages then the newspaper pay the damages - not the journalist.

If the journalist had to cough up then nobody would go into the industry!

I've seen TD today somewhere ...the name thread I think - she's around still.

TD was on a thread last night, so she is still around.

Message lifted by the Daily Mail.

message made racist by daily mail

whataboutthisone, I think libel is very different because the journalist actually wrote the offending article, including whatever passage was deemed libellous, so was responsible as was the paper for publishing it.

In this case, LH did not 'write' the content which is in dispute, she topped and tailed it with her own comment. The newspaper published the thread and her comments, so is therefore infringing on the copyright MNHQ by using the thread.

i dont think there is any conspiricy

i do think there is inconsistancy with who can and cant have their posts deleted.

however i can see that in cods case it was for a damned good reason

and there would be other damned good reasons too.

imagine a post board that is like walking through 7 years of your history ( for me)

then 145 posters decide to delete all their posts.

and my MN history becomes patchy too.

i dont think there is any conspiricy

i do think there is inconsistancy with who can and cant have their posts deleted.

however i can see that in cods case it was for a damned good reason

and there would be other damned good reasons too.

imagine a post board that is like walking through 7 years of your history ( for me)

then 145 posters decide to delete all their posts.

and my MN history becomes patchy too.

Please dont start calling people liars. It is very unbecoming.

MNHQ have done me the courtesy of of deleting a few posts in the pasts where I have mentioned DCs names or some other stupid thing.

I still think is someone de-regs that they should be able to click a mass-delete button and take their posting history with them. However, over the last 24 hours I've been trawling through some of my old posts and some of them are really nice to read. If they were all deleted I could never look back, and if anonymous I wouldnt know they were me.

Lesson to me is to try and post in chat more as I know things are deleted there.

Oh course your shrink wouldn't have agreed to it Shrinkie it's pointless and paranoid.

Seriously what are you fearing is going to happen? whatver it is you are fearing it is very very very very very very unlikley to happen and so really not worth spending 6hours over and emotionally exhausting yourself.

Really.

Nancy66 - You are incorrect about the paper being solely liable for libel. Each and every repetition of a libel is a fresh cause of action. So the claimant may sue the journalist, the paper, the publisher, the distributor, Mumsnet and the Mumsnetter in the example of that piece in the DM (were it libellous). But for practical reasons the claimant would normally choose the defendant with the most wonga.

I have written stuff that could upset my dad and my family.

I wrote it when my mental health was less robust than it is now.

It is worrying me that it may become an article in the DM, and maybe otjher publications.

My Dad doesn't come on MN but does somtimes read the DM.

If he read some of the stuff I have written, it would be obvious it was me that posted it due to unique circumstances. He would be very hurt. We have moved on as a family now and life is alot better for me and all of us.

It is very painful to have to search for the posts.

Mumsnet have been very pleasant about it but so far have not said they will delete all of my old posts to save me from doing this.

As you can see, I am quite sane now. But I wasn't and it is dreadfully painful to me to admit it to MN, to you, and to myself.

Yes but MP you are always witty and erudite not usually sobbing and snotting over the keyboard and asking for advice about your husband's animal porn use [disclaimer: me neither]

Eh, why has my post been deleted? What did I say?

I think Mumsnet should delete Shrinkie's posting history as it's clearly causing her distress.

Remainder of message lifted by NUTS.

Nancy, that may well be true if the journo works for the paper, but in tha case I was on, she was a freelance and was brought into the action as a separate party. She could have had her own legal representation but was unable to afford it and so represented herself, whereas the paper was represented by one of the biggest names at that time. The judge was very clear that if damages were awarded, she would be responsible for her share of that.

Pofaced - Don't worry. It's just Mumsnet lifting your post in its entirety so it can be quoted verbatim in the DM, without infringing MN copyright. MNHQ see no other way round it at the current time.

Remainder of message deleted by Mumsnet.

[pofaced sees beam of light in the garden goes out to get lifted by Justine's space ship]

I think this is important to realise.
Some people are more robust than others.
And sometimes even fairly normal people ahve stresses that make them a bit mad for a while.

And it would be helpful if people recognised that on here.

admitting weakness?

i dunno - sounds risky

The other, slighty odd, thing that is in the back of my mind is that losing my history on here feels a little bit like losing part of my history altogether.

I know it is a bit touchy feely and silly but (as has been shown by the number of posts I have made) I have invested a lot here and losing all of that feels a bit.... big.

How about this for an idea... instead of mass deletion or whatever when someone de-regs why don't they come up with a system where the de-regger is given a special log on that works for a weekish so they can go through all of their posts and remove anything particularly identifying, perhaps being asked to replace them with more generic details. Then, before these changes take effect HQ can go through and ok them or query them if they are not happy.

I know it would be a bit of legwork for HQ but 1) in normal situations people don't de-reg very often so it would not be a load at once 2) faced with the massive number of posts to go through most people really will stick to altering the biggest clangers (and if it is set up right HQ will only be given altered posts to look at themselves) 3) giving people this opportunity means that nobody can face any come back in the future regardless of how they decide to use posts/who they sell MN to or anything else because posters have been given the chance to sort it out when they left.

Shrinkie, honestly, the risk or chnaces of your posts being lifted from the archives and reprinted in the DM and then read and recognised by your dad is minisculy small and not something you shoul dbe spending, any tme, never mind large amounts of time worrying about.

It's like staying inside all day worrying that if you go out you could get hit by a bus. Well yes you could but it is so unlikely as to make acting upon it irrational. Of course there is always the 'well it happened to someone I know' arguemnt, ie Thunderduck in this case, but honestly how many poel post? how mant posts are there, how people have been exposed in the DM? A .0000001% (OK I admit I haven't actually calculated this I'm estimating)

I really am trying to helpful, and help you reduce the idae of this 'risk' in yuor mind.