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 Their argument was that they had changed T&Cs and my complaint was therefore no longer valid.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

I cant see you being able to justify asking them to stop printing the column after 6 features.

I expect the issues to become more sensitive over the next few weeks. Next week's will be another dull topic and then they will ramp it up a bit.

The column is very dull. Doesnt really put MN or it's members in a particularly flattering light.

I don't post regularly so this doesn't affect me as much as others but my thoughts are - this is a public forum, don't post things you aren't happy to have in any public domain, there is always a chance they could be read by anyone irrespective of the media they appear in. Of course MNHQ want to make as much money as poss, they are running a business, think the description of being a social enterprise is probably stretching the description a bit (by my understanding anyway). As for mass deletion of posts - surely HQ have set a precedent on that having formally deleted other members posts, when they have revealed too much (particularly the stuff they shouldn't have publically revealed), attracted negative attention due to the nature of their posts (not just content but tone) and had it bite them on the arse - if it can be done for 1 then it should for anyone who wants the same.
The posting silly comments on the dm website does feel a bit playground, if we are talking about the MN image that surely doesn't help!

Thanks Carrie
Appreciate you coming back. It is frustrating when things happen and half the office is on holiday - been there, got the T-shirt..

I would have to add my voice to those who feel a link with the DM is not what we feel Mumsnet reflects. Just looking at the other links on the Femail page makes me squirm. I am glad that LH has taken off the "real" mumsnetters' names but as someone has already pointed out, it is not exactly that hard to find the real thread and see the real posting names. A casual reader isn't going to do that, obviously, but a journo or someone who recognised a situation described in the DM could certainly do some digging. Again I know others have said it but it does seem lazy on LH's part, when morningpaper could do such a better job and not just c&p (bet she'd make up funnier posting names too).

I can understand that people want to leave over this, but hope no-one feels sufficiently threatened to do so. Although I don't post much, I read lots of threads where someone seems to be going through the same as me, and I get lots of support from that. No-one wants MN to become totally lightweight chat stuff, there is so much more to it than that.

I am oping to go to a MN meet next week so it will be interesting to see what RL MNetters have made of this saga.

Agree with anyold and Nancy - if you're waiting to 'make the decision' and challenge them on fair usage, it's probably too late.

A cynic might say the delay is a good way of not making a positive decision, and thus trying to avoid unpopularity with your many members who are extremely opposed to the idea.

Lucky for me I'm not a cynic...

Stripey - if MN were unhappy with the column and wanted it pulled then, yes, they should have immediately voiced their concerns and let it be known they were seeking legal advice. That's what I'd have done anyway...

I get the sense though, that to do that would be like facing an incoming nuclear bomb with a pea shooter. You know?

Though no one is going to say that outright....

yeah but newspaper if thats how they really feel and would rather the association with a misogynistic, racist, zenophobic, edvery thing else phobic didnt exist why not just say look were not too happy about the link but not much we can do about it other than just hope they get bored.

so I assume LH is still posting on mn and not banned. so the very people who's mn experience is being ruined by her lazy journalism might be supporting her.

there is more than one way to skin a rabbit - a good PR campaign could do the job just as effectively.

Thinking along the lines of DM bullies small chat site into giving up copyright....

Anyone got Max Clifford's number?

Oh god no...you do NOT want to get involved with Max clifford!

yeah but mumsnet havent said they dont want this to run so actually apart from a poss issue with fair use and all that they appear to be quite happy with the publicity. not sure what gain for them as they said last week hits on mumsnet werent really any different

What I can't fathom having just skimmed the dm website is why they are not using their own users comments on their own parenting forums? Much more logical and less contentious.

I'm very against and will not be posting any personal info on here any more.

I do not want any of my statements appearing in a newspaper. My elderly relatives do not use the internet so I get some anonymity. Too many people read the Mail alas and the idea of a situation been spotted isn't worth considering.

nancy

There is only one organisation that makes newspapers shake in their shoes...they are the Keyser Soze of the media world.

C-C-C....CARTER RUCK!!!

look at their website and you'll see why.

You are very very right.

i can';t believe they used my comment how did it get through!

MNHQ, i don't so much think that this is a no-balls thing, just that (quite understandably imo) you don't want to stop the column.

as nancy and others have said, by entering into an agreement with them re the frills you've effectively put your hands up over the main issue, which is do you want to be in the Mail at all? (i mean i think you do, i think you'd be a bit mad not to etc but, ech, it doesn't feel that super down here, that's all.)

and i say that as someone who reads the mail online fairly avidly. it just doesn't seem like the right mn brand partner to me, considering it's the most linked-to place on the whole website by mners BOGGLING at the misogynistic rants about poor fiona philips without make up etc. shouldn't the BOGGLING be a clue?

tom watson, mp, is clearly out of his brian

LOL x-posted with Nancy

I feel it should really be put to the vote. A poll perhaps about how Mumsnet members ie its life blood really feel.

To be associated or not!

At the moment it does feel like HQ have chosen to side with the devil, sorry have chosen to allow a partnership with the DM.

If the majority say no it would be nice if HQ's views and responses reflect this.

This isn't Zimbabwe, it's Britain. Nobody is above the law, not even the Daily Mail.

That's a spineless position to take.

Carriemumsnet - Your message is terribly confusing as this following quoted paragraph suggests you are impoverished and principled but simply can't (afford?) to do anything about it?

"As Justine said early on, noone in their right mind wants to start getting legal with the Daily Mail and certainly at the moment with half the team away we just wanted to open communication with them and see if we could get the things that most worried Mumsnetters - namely editorial content and identities - changed."

And then you go on to wonder whether being associated with the DM is a good thing? Notwithstanding whether or not they've had the audacity [catsbumface] to infringe your copyright and upset your members? Eh?

It's a lot of fence-sitting. And never mind that half your team are missing, what do you think, Carrie?

But are talk members MN 'lifeblood'?

It's a much bigger site than just Talk.

People who chat on here certainly don't own it (if they did there would have been no Mothercare ads and it would still be a lot smaller). So why on earth would there be a vote? MNHQ have always said they want it to be big and open to everyone. They've sorted out the privacy issue, there are already DM type views expressed on these boards fairly frequently (otherwise why would it be interested anyway?) so I can't see from their -i.e. MNHQ's- point of view what would be in it for them to try and stop it.

lol at the comments section.