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 Their argument was that they had changed T&Cs and my complaint was therefore no longer valid.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!

hm. Well I am not happy with the daily mail running a weekly "This week on Mumsnet'.

So tomorrow we are going to have the lunch box debate -it will be interesting to see how even handed it is in terms of arguments for and against reproduced in Femail.

Sorry, actually deeply disappointed at this. They apologised for not letting MNHQ know in advance? Should'nt that have been DM apologises for failing to gain permission to run MN threads?

I do understand that not much can be done until key players are back. But I fail to see why they could not have pulled the column until a formal agreement is in place.

Not a happy bunny at all. oh no.

I think that sounds perfectly fair.

The MN members that hate the DM don't ever have to look at it on the site.

MN can get some publicity and poss a few new members and those whose posts are lifted for the column will be name changed and unidentifiable.

I think it would take a pretty unreasonable person to object.

I don't get how "the discussion about whether or not Mumsnet should be associated with the Daily Mail at all" comes after "They are really keen to continue with the column and we've managed to clarify some key issues for this week's column (and any subsequent ones)"

The column should be pulled until the association is agreed.

actually, psml at the idea of the DM 'empathising" with Mnetters...

I'm sure they really empathise with me, a single parent, unmarried, not even having the decency to be widowed. And empathise with my struggles to provide for my child and keep a roof over our heads and food on our table...after all, I'm not allowed to claim benefits or work, am I?

Its just utter bollox. And offensive. And wrong. And shameful.

Grow a pair, MNHQ.

Nancy, it is not unreasonable for Mnetters to object to being formally partnered with the DM.

Much as I do not associate with any organisations whose ethos and stated beliefs go against everything I consider reasonable and humane, and pertinent to our society today.

So yes, I have a choice, not whether i read the DM or not, but whether I continue to use MN or not.

And what is perfectly fair about a huge media organisation bullying another enterprise into to sharing their intellectual property for no financial or marketing gain?

Yeah, sorry I nicked your dinner money. I'm going to keep doing it, but you know I like you, and I know you are too scared of me to take me on.

Rocking.

This is a bit long, but in my defence I haven't said much. I am only new, but I am frequent and so had to post my pov. I feel a warm sense of ownsership and investment and involvement towards and in mn.

Towers, I have a problem with the site I post on being affiliated to any newspaper. If I had to sit and make a list of the worst way that could happen, the DM would come top of the list. Sorry!

I am also very very very very very very suspicious of the intentions of the DM. Having never hit upon a warm, well thought out contructive piece of reporting yet [on the topics that are of concern to me as a mother/wife/worker] I find it easy to imagine the day when our words on musnet will be used to champion causes and pov I personally would feel uncomfortable with.

On the wider less personal scale, in terms of how mumsnet is regarded, this affiliation with DM feels like the mumsnet debates and pov have run their course - have reached a conclusion. On all things parenting, birthing, working, social, political. The conclusion can be found in this weeks DM.

Nope. Not for me.

I don't think legally MNHQ can do anything though can they?

floflo, of course they can do something legall! They own the copyright to those threads!

whether they choose to do something about this blatant theft, either through legal channels, or through simply asking them to desist, is another matter.

Stripey, I seriously don't think that an MN column will change the ethos of either the DM or their readers. More likely is that MN will become permenantly associated with the DM and change as a result.

It would be nice to know if MN were seeking legal advice on this. I know its expensive, but it does go to the heart of the MN business model and its viability in the long term, if MN does not challenge this, then it leaves itself vulnerable to future exploitation and the devaluing of its core revenue generating product

Hm, I don't think there is any problem is distancing myself from a set of values lifted from some small home-counties town circa 1950.

Stripey, I get your point, but if I wanted to engage with the DM on these issues, I would do it, I would not in the process turn myself in to a tame DM lapdog.

I realise i am doing a bit of thread hogging - so I will skip off now and think nice thoughts about other things. Then reengage later.

But, bizarrely, feeling rather sad about it all.

Whatever you think about the association mmhq benefits from it. Exposure in a national newspaper = more hits = growing the business. Which is after all the point of a business. Which is the point of Talk.

Mnhq sound as if they have got a pretty hood deal out of it in terms of dialogue with the DM and keeping it topical/ knowing the topic in advance etc. I don't suppose they needed to be bullied into free advertising. Remember they need to remain on good terms with the press. If they're difficult they won't be quoted anywhere ( netmums will) and their business will stop growing.

Bloody iPod hood=good

By golly with all that saying exactly what it is we would want to hear whilst still doing exactly what they want anyone would think the DM was full of journos and politicians or something.....

Carrie, thank you for the update, I do appreciate that this is a difficult situation for HQ but, tbh, it seems that nothing has changed at all other than HQ are now sanctioning the column by default.

I am just not happy with that, I do not post on the DM forums because it is not the place for me, if MN (or the perception of MN) is to become a bit of an extension of the DM forums then that seems to make MN not the place for me either - which I find increadibly sad.

I am still reserving judgement as I appreciate htis is not yet finished, however, as an interim position things are not looking great to me!

On the subject of deletions, you seem to have restated your old policy. Is there no room for movement at all given the current situation and the concern regarding future events? I do understand the point about mass deletions but what is the thinking on allowing a limited period of altering posts slightly to remove identifying detail?

There are lots of ideas here on how to make posters happier and more secure does HQ have a position on any of those? (Obviously my de-reg suggestion is the best one though ).

I thought the objections were all about security - that was certainly my understanding from the first 2000 or so posts.

Now that it is established there will be no risk of MN posters being revealed the objections are now about politics.

I don't think this is a difficult situation for MNHQ at all. I think they have got exactly what they want from this. Massive publicity and a few tweaks to minimise discontent in the ranks.