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 Their argument was that they had changed T&Cs and my complaint was therefore no longer valid.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

Agree with Soupdragon.

A whole column dedicated to the dilemma of what to put in a lunchbox?

Yes, i agree - dull, but last weeks column could have cause distress to the op - AFAIK no-one knows if anything came from it - has the op ever come back?

Just out of interest soupy and tired do you really think that is how it will stay? Can't you see the potential for this column to be made much more sensational? Certainly the material is here for them to do that.

On another point, how is that thread "this week on mn" seeing as it isn't this weeks thread? someone has obviously been delving a little further back than threads this week.

Can I just ask, why mnhq have got the DM to agree to not lifting certain things (ie special needs posts), but not others ??

I personally have alot of old posts in Lone Parents that I would not want to see appearing in the DM, as we all know how anti lone parents they are.

I am not saying that not allowing them to lift from SN is wrong at all, but other sections have equally sensitive posts in.

Oh, this week's offering is clearly a sweetener. There's no way such drivel would have been passed as fit for publication otherwise. Even the fake names are dire.

Nutty, old posts are apparently safe. The DM claim the column will be, as it says, "this week on MN"

Is it not this week's lunchbox thread? I assumed it had come from the ham thread (although I've not read that and did think I'd read some of the posts in the mail article before)

I can see some need for extra protection in special needs partly because it might sometimes be nec to post a lot of identifying info in order to give enough info to be able to get help/support from other posters.

But on the other hand, mental health presents its own special sensitivity, and other subject areas do too presumably.

It isn't a principled compromise. It is tinkering to keep posters reasonably happy whiltst going ahead with a tie-in that gives MN wanted publicity and growth.

No, hang on I will try to find it....

Please tell me one of you lot wrote the comment about this weeks article? Tis very funny!

"Us tax payers will end up funding their fussiness. As usual."

Am pissing myself

Again I agree with Soupdragon (im not following you around!!)

This weeks is obv pointless drivel to make us think "Oh what is all the fuss about".

Give it a few weeks and the more serious stuff will start appearing.

Giving DM readers something to salivate over.

I feel very clear that Mumsnet should not be getting into bed with any newspaper. Newspapers are politically positioned and divisive, whereas I've always thought Mumsnet to be the absolute opposite -- somewhere where women of wildly differing political opinions can discuss things with humour and good grace.

The fact that MN have chosen to get into bed with the pestilent Daily Mail creates a separate corpuscle of disgust for me. And surely it's the marketing mistake of the century?

yeah exactly they say theyve got not politlcal axe to grind but are happy to be linked to one particular newspaper

The thread this week's column was lifted wholesale researched from was started on the 8th but has had posts this week so I guess it is "this week".

I don't believe that the DM won't go trawling through old threads though Soupy, do you ?

It's not really 'On Mumsnet this week" is it?

here

But I see you found it without me

As you say started on the 8th but comments this week so I suppose it could count - it is still not a thread relating to HamGate though is it!

It also indicates just how easy it is to find a thread regardless of how the names are changed and of any re-writting that has been done.

Given there was a thread about Hamgate, it's a bit shit isn't it?!

So there are certain boards that they won't be able to use, but surely people talk about personal things ( children with sn, miscarriages, bad births, domestic problems etc ) on all the boards, because sometimes if people are giving their opinion on something they draw from incidences in their daily life. Maybe in future everyone who posts on AIBU could just post yes/no answers!

You only needed to search for the word foodzillas to find it

Hazeyjane - I know what you mean, I keep trying to leave it and wait until we get a conclusion but other people keep talking.,.. it is all their fault really

Exactly - like anyone would have a hard time thinking of that!

So, I don't think the privacy issue has been sorted Saintly.

hazeyjane does anyone really believe that though? I think it is only a matter of time before a story is lifted from a more sensitive topic, I mean it isn't like the "journalist" has any scruples

Has anyone else noticed the netmums.com advert on TV BTW? I would start a thread about it but I am being petulant staying off the main boards

did anyone else find it amusing that there is a comment off someone from tunbridge wells?

Interesting - the comments are exactly what I would expect them to be - and further supports why I do not want MN associated with the DM.