Please vote in our "What do you think about the On Mumsnet This Week column in the Daily Mail?" poll

[JustineMumsnet]

Hello all,
So am back in Blighty and have caught up on everything posted and all the ongoing correspondence with the DM that's gone on while I've been away. (Sorry very poor communications on hols so haven't really been in the loop but Carrie and team have filled me in now.)
Thanks all for the input as ever.

There are a few things you've raised that we need to address and clarify. So, as ever, apologies in advance for the long post.

The first I think is MNHQ's attitude towards this column and why we didn't try and put a stop to it earlier, i.e. the moment we found out about it. (Recap for those who may have missed: we didn't know in advance that it was going to happen, the first we knew about it was when we saw the first column being discussed on MN and initially we didn't think we had any legal grounds to contest the DM's use of MN quotes. We subsequently established some time after column 2 that the DM is, in fact, most likely infringing MN copyright).

As I said early on, a weekly column in the DM is not something we'd have sought. We share many Mumsnetters' misgivings about the views and general tone of the paper - particularly it's attitudes towards working women, immigrants etc. And as I've also said we've as yet detected no noticeable increase in visitors on Thursdays when the column is published (or on any other days for that matter). Nor is it a column that fills us with pride because it adequately represents the joy and wonder that is Mumsnet. So why - as some have understandably wondered - are we not banging our fists about stopping the darned thing and have we not fired off a barrage of legal threats? Why instead do we at HQ seem a bit ambivalent about whether the column exists or not?

The main answer is this. Like it or not, the Daily Mail is a very influential beast, probably one of the most politically influential institutions in the UK. So, irrespective of the content of these columns, the very fact that the Daily Mail have decided that Mumsnet is prominent and interesting enough to base a weekly column around increases our clout. Clout when it comes to asking government ministers to consider things like our miscarriage campaign, clout when we try to persuade Gok Wan's PR that he ought to pay us a visit, or when the Tories are thinking about environment policy or what they're going to do to increase breastfeeding rates.

We also have a distinct reluctance to "go legal" with anyone after our experience of GF going legal with us - the legal system and lawyers (particularly opposing lawyers) have a way of eating up all your resources, not to mention your will to live. And call us lily-livered if you like, we'd rather not be at the top the DM's hit list if there's a way of avoiding it.

Plus, from the correspondence Carrie's had with the mail in the last couple of weeks, it's clear that they would are prepared to take steps to minimise the privacy risks.

That said, we accept many of the reservations argued well here and in previous threads about the imperfect nature of the association.

In short, those of you who've accused us of residing on the fence are probably right - we are a bit and tbh it's not very comfortable!
So where next?

We think perhaps it would be best both to help us get off the fence and, if it comes to it, to lay the column to rest, to put the matter to the vote. We recognise that it's not a perfect solution but there have been a number of objections raised about this and we'd like to see exactly what it is that folks are objecting to - MN in the Daily Mail per se. MN in the Daily Mail without MN control over content. MN in the Daily Mail in its current guise/format - for example would it be OK if it were it a funny weekly column written by someone like MorningPaper (they'd never have she's far too rude of course)? Or perhaps you don't object at all (and you have an aversion to posting on this thread ).

Hopefully they'll be a clear conclusion and we promise to abide by it and to do our darnedest to put it into action as quickly as possible.

We're sorry this has dragged on a bit - it is a bit tricky to conduct this type of negotiation in public, particularly when there's a whiff of the legals about - and as we all know (if we didn't already) MN is a very public board, open for all to see and easily searchable etc. At some points we do sometimes have to just hope that you trust that we are not the bad guys who are trying to manipulate, exploit and mislead you all for our own ends (many thanks to those who have said as much). If you think that we are then there's nowt much we can say I suspect to ever sway you otherwise - but you're welcome on MN all the same because it's not really about us, after all.

It also doesn't help that it all kicked off in holiday season which is how it always is (GF the same) - sod's law and all that. Anyway humble apologies for not being a bit more accessible/on the ball in the last few weeks. We are almost all back at full strength now and generally at your disposal .

So here's our very quick poll - please fill it in (just the once please). It won't gain you entry in any competitions to win a family holiday outside of school holidays but it will most certainly influence what we do next.

Many thanks.

[Pielight]

Yes I understand Aitch. I haven't really been aware of many snippy comments or personal attacks (but have seen things said which could be taken v. personally - I have probably contributed to those). I suppose I tend to think people who have posted on here have done so because to some degree they care about what the way forward is / they find it an interesting debate.

i don't really mind who they are, or how long they've been around, or where they post on the internet. Though because I'm not aware of any veiled activities on this thread, doesn't meant here haven't been any, do see that.

[daftpunk]

SS...just want to say how much i appreciate your patience ..dispite my views on homosexuals and gay parenting you never get annoyed with me.....

[madameDefarge]

humph!

[Indaba]

Please, please, please don't get into bed with DM. My you will break my heart!

[madameDefarge]

[bibbitybobbityhat]

MD as you say there have been only one or two pointed personal attacks on MP and I think the majority of the rest saying "no no no to a weekly column written by MP (of another) have absolutely no personal axe to grind with MP whatsoever.

Yes, from my pov you're spot on with this "but we reserve the right to come back into the playground we decided wasn't for us, kick a bit of sand around and generally remind everyone who the big girls really are" wrt - it has to be said - a few mn oldies. I do wonder why they care. (Oh actually I can guess as to why some of them care but will email you).

[daftpunk]

you know MD, this whole situation is a shame, all my fave MN posters are on this thread, even though i am politically, spiritually, (and prob lots of other words ending in lly) worlds apart from you, i respect your opinions, & i learn from you.

i wouldn't care if MN teamed up with the guardian, it's not my paper but hey, bring me some more hippies!

[Heathcliffscathy]

the thing about the incognito posters is that mnhq know who they are!!!

[tigermoth]

OK so let me get this straight:

The DM article is to be written by a different writer each week, drawn from a pool of MN writers.

But shed loads of mumsnetters hate MN being linked to the DM, and are not afraid to say so.

Looking at recent history, anyone (whether they are mumsnet regulars or not) who dares write a DM article on mumsnet can expect to be attacked on here. A lot.

So how big is this pool of MN writers? Have they lemming-like tendencies? Do they not give a toss about attracting the inevitable mumsnet backlash? Seriously, will the angst be worth it?

[madameDefarge]

[Itsjustafleshwound]

In ancient Greece, Socrates was reputed to hold knowledge in high esteem.

One day, an acquiantance met the great philosopher and said, Socrates, do you know what I just heard about your friend?'
'Hold on a minute,' Socrates replied, 'Before telling me anything, I'd like you to pass a little test. It's called the triple filter test.'
'Before you talk to me about my friend, it might be a good idea to take a moment and filter what you're going to say. The first filter is truth - have you made sure that what you are about to tell me is based on fact?'
'No,' the man said.
'So you don't know if it true. Is what you are about to tell me about my friend is something good?' asked Socrates.
'Er no, actually..'
'So, you want to tell me something bad about this friend and are unsure as to whether or not it is true? Is what you are about to tell me about my friend useful?'
'Err, not really'
'So not only is what you are about to tell me untrue and bad, it is also of no importance? Why do you want to tell me?'

That, dear friend, is why there was no DM in ancient Greece..

Can I change my vote to a firm NO??

[madameDefarge]

[QuintessentialShadows]

You are bang on with that.

[Winehouse]

Aitch I have searched for a link to the post I mentioned but I can't find it. It is possible the whole thread was pulled at the time. I know it was in January and I kept it on a stickie on my desktop for months, until I upgraded my software and cleared everything out. So I can't prove it, but I know you said it.

Knowing my previous name would not make any difference to anyone reading my views here, would it? I'm not scared of my identity being revealed and actually gave my RL name in a recent message related to this issue, but as a matter of principle I don't see why the opinions I am expressing here would be interpreted differently if I told you my old name.

[madameDefarge]

Stripey, I think we have common ground on the spreading of the word, just the methods differ!

[madameDefarge]

sadly, stripey, I think poll as it stands is a recipe for carnage. Whatever way you cut that cake no one is going to be happy.

[stillfrazzled]

Stripey, I admire your posting style. I would disagree about the lumping in of Don't Cares with the Yeses, though - purely because they've had three choices which point to a positive yes and haven't chosen any of them. Is clearly not, therefore, a Yes, and seems unfair to me to say they are.

But then I am a firm No and therefore quite possibly biased...

[Prunerz]

I'm an oldie who came back to comment. Not one of the big girls by any stretch, though.

I was just reading it yesterday like this at the utter mess it all is, and since ds has had a cold and was resting on the sofa, I thought I'd comment.

There's always more going on behind the scenes than seems obvious with these things, isn't there?

[madameDefarge]

clearly prunerz. I feel a bit like Little Red Riding Hood, skipping through the copse, sharing my freshly baked thoughts with any soul I happen to come across...