Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk

Back to thread
Original poster

Agenda, much?

40 replies

Malificence · 03/03/2012 17:47

I don't usually wander onto the MN facebook page but I was pretty horrified to find what looks very much like an MRA agenda posted on there.
I'm trying very hard to see what relevance the photo used for their site has regarding the voices of unheard children. Hmm Looks more like how they would like to see their women to me.

www.facebook.com/#!/mumsnet?sk=wall

Go to post
MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 08/03/2012 20:59

@BeerTricksPott3r

I'll tell you what isn't deemed to be defamatory.

Posting disgusting things about a man with obvious mental health problems in prison (featured on a TV programme). That he should be 'put down' was one of them.

Strangely, my report about that was brushed off with "Spirit of debate/challenge on the thread" bollocks.

Pity he didn't have f4j bigwigs looking out for him, isn't it?

News to me, that one, BeerTricks. But we'd be happy to root out that report and have another look.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 08/03/2012 21:08

@Nyac

"Really? That post hasn't been reported to us as being potentially defamatory."

I'm not following. Are you saying it's OK to call Matthew Wright a cunt, right up until the time his lawyers or representatives email you and say, it's potentially defamatory? But until then anything like that can stay?

We are a post-moderated forum, Nyac. We don't pre-moderate posts but we will remove posts that break our Talk Guidelines once we are made aware of them.

So, in the scenario you paint, yes.

HelenMumsnet · 08/03/2012 21:11

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 08/03/2012 21:30

@runningforthebusinheels

I do understand why MNHQ have to be so careful - after all the SWMNBN business. But I trust this won't turn back into the debacle that was Tues night MNHQ? With no criticism of F4J being allowed to stand at all? Surely it is not defamatory to criticise a public organisation? Especially when you are using uncontested facts published by them themselves. Or quotes from already-published articles.

I really appreciate that MNHQ seem to have stopped the F4J trolls on here, and thank you for responding to my request so quickly and deleting all the misogynist rubbish being posted on your FB site. But you know they are calling us man-haters and child abusers on their site. It may have been deleted now (although I doubt it) but someone wrote that it's "not just the individuals posting on MN, it's the whole MN organisation now." That was the just of it - defamatory surely?

Please don't gag us and prevent us from discussing this highly politicised, lobbying, organisation - oh the irony!

We're not gagging anyone. Just asking you all to stick to our Guidelines.

And, no, it's not defamatory to criticise a public organisation. Although you could, potentially, say something potentially defamatory while doing so

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 08/03/2012 21:32

@BeerTricksPott3r

Would you have given them our log-in details like they asked, MNHQ?

Out of interest?

No, we never give anyone any information we hold on our members without their permission - unless we are specifically compelled to do so by law.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 08/03/2012 21:35

@smallwhitecat

It wouldn't occur to the lamebrains at HQ that they could threaten F4J with precisely the same sanctions as they are being threatened with, given all the crap that's been published on their site about MN'ers. If what is on here is actionable (it isn't) then what's on there sure as hell is. Spineless.

That would assume, smallwhitecat, that our intentions are the same as theirs. They aren't.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 08/03/2012 21:36

@runningforthebusinheels

That's as clear as mud Helen Grin

Thanks for the clarification though - you're not bothered about them slagging off MN to this extent then?

Not sure that "not bothered" captures it. We probably prefer to "rise above".

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 08/03/2012 21:40

@smallwhitecat

"unless we are specifically compelled to do so by law." which given the grasp of legal issues there is in these parts, presumably equates to "whenever someone threatens us with legal action, however ill-founded"

I don;t want to alarm you all, but I wouldn't believe a word that comes out of this particular orifice, not now anyway

Well, think what you like of my orifice, smallwhitecat, it's the truth. While I have worked here, we have had numerous requests for poster's details, often accompanied by the thread of legal action. I can only think of one instance where we eventually complied - because the police requested us to.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 08/03/2012 21:41

@Nyac

On international woman's day, a men's rights organisation - Fathers for Justice - silenced women on Mumsnet.

Mumsnet accepted this, despite their stated commitment to free speech.

How have you been silenced, Nyac? We've just asked everyone to stick to our Guidelines - and said that we will delete posts that break them.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 08/03/2012 21:44

@Nyac

Mumsnet wouldn't hand over our details, they stood firm against Garry the adman.

Indeed we did.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 08/03/2012 21:46

@LineRunner

MNHQ There is a huge difference between being 'legally compelled to' give details, and being 'requested' to do so.

Which is it?

Am I safe on here?

Think it's safe to say we were legally compelled, LineRunner. Apols for worrying you.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 08/03/2012 21:58

@smallwhitecat

I think this is actually quite serious. Helen, please clarify if it is MN policy to hand over member's details on receipt of police request, or if you insist on court order or similar compulsion. Because you know, don't you (please tell me you know) that you don't have to give the coppers stuff just because they ask. Once we know the answer, we will know how to act.

Of course we know.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 08/03/2012 22:01

@NormaStanleyFletcher

I can't believe that details are being handed over.

This thread is about to be full btw - I doubt it will be extended by MNHQ.

Do we want a new thread started?

Just to be really clear, we haven't handed over anyone's details to any third party. We haven't been asked to. And we have no intention of doing so even if we are.

Our policy is, always has been and remains, that we never hand over anyone's details to a third party without their permission - unless we are specifically and legally compelled to.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 08/03/2012 22:08

@LineRunner

I would like to know under exactly which circumstances MNHQ would hand over to the police or any other party my name and address, given that these could then be obtained by a third party under discovery rules.

Does MNHQ have a written policy on this?

If I don't like it, am I able to make a request to have all my personal details deleted permanently from MNHQ's database, and all my posts deleted, to keep my children safe?

LineRunner, here is our Privacy policy

And yes.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 08/03/2012 22:40

@AliceHurled

I reported a post that defamed women's aid. I have had no reply. Why is that ok? Because women's aid aren't threatening you with lawyers you don't care, even though women's aid work for the benefit if so many users if this site?

Oh and happy women's day Hmm

You probably haven't had a reply, AliceHurled, because we haven't got to your report yet. We are a bit swamped We'll get back to you/act on your report as soon as we can.

Watch this thread for updates

Tap "Watch" to get all the latest updates

End of posts

There are no more MNHQ posts on this thread

Back to thread