Clarification on who and what we can discuss

[IfIWasABirdIdFlyIn2ACeilingFan]

Clearly Lily is on the no list.

I would like clarification from MNHQ as to why we can’t discuss Lily, who else we can’t discuss and what we can’t discuss.

Two threads regarding Lily’s public posts on twitter have been deleted this evening. According to MNHQ these were deleted for being a personal attack and a pile on. However, HQ will be aware of a thread discussing boris Johnston, a thread discussing Colleen Nolan, and one discussing Roxanne Pallett. All of which have been far from complimentary. All allowed to stand.

There would appear to be different standards being applied according to who is being discussed.

I’ve reported this thread in the hope that HA will address this issue and provide clarification. I also ask that this thread does not become a thread about Lily as it will be deleted. This thread is for clarification about what we can discuss and not a TAAT.

I wondered where that went.

I think we all know exactly what the magical characteristic is that renders certain discussions forbidden on the boards.

You can't fight city hall.

Or in this case, you can't talk about a topic which mods (not all mods) are determined to censor.

Very tempting to start speaking in code.

To be fair, if there was a legal threat from LM, no matter how spurious, MNHQ is just going to pull the lot.
I'd bet £5 that's what happened.

We're going to end up like those tacky celeb gossip columns that don't name the celebs but skirt fairly close to it.
"A certain young political figure with a penchant for pinafores has hinted that they may be flashing their nipples online soon"

The other three would look bad for even threatening MN with litigation. So I wouldn't be surprised if some Law undergraduate has written a threatening email saying he'll get daddy (who's a QC) to cause trouble.
In fact I'll make it £10.

Which is fine Turph, but clarification on it would be helpful. As it stands all we’ve been told is “it was a personal attack/pile on” which isn’t helpful because neither threads were. If HQ are facing legal action from LM then they’re doing themselves no favours by not telling us. How can we know what to avoid saying if they don’t tell us?

A certain young political figure with a penchant for pinafores

Tbf, the one about Lily's breasts was mean and unnecessary. We wouldn't talk about a natal woman like that, so we shouldn't do it to others.

When they go low, we go high.

Right, so are we saying that if someone in the public eye draws attention to something personal about themselves online, they’re allowed to discuss it, but we’re not?

If they came straight out and said “no LM threads please” then they are being clear about what we can post. But pretending a thread was a pile on so they can delete it is pointless. Other LM threads will be started. Because LM will still be in the public eye and unless we are told otherwise, we can discuss people who are in the public eye.

How can we know what to avoid saying if they don’t tell us?
But they have told us, they've pulled the thread. And let's be honest, if MNHQ said they'd had a dodgy email and decided on balance it wasn't worth the legal risk to keep a certain thread open, and then told us that, we'd rip the mods to shreds for being spineless, and it'd run to dozens of pages.

No SPOFS it wasn’t about that person’s breasts. It was about that persons posts about their breasts.

I thought that thread would go tits up.

But they have told us, they've pulled the thread.

They’ve pulled the thread because “it was a personal attack/pile on” that doesn’t tell us we can’t discuss LM. That tells us very little tbh. There’s no room for ambiguity here if HQ are facing legal action.

if MNHQ said they'd had a dodgy email and decided on balance it wasn't worth the legal risk to keep a certain thread open, and then told us that, we'd rip the mods to shreds for being spineless, and it'd run to dozens of pages.

It’s happened before and those people just don’t get discussed on MN. Everyone knows who they are and not to talk about them.

#allthreadsareequalbut... Etc etc repeat ad infinitum. And boom! Love it minotaur

LM is a hypocrite, and I only read a few posts in to the deleted thread, so I don't know what was said.
This is one of the few places GC topics can be discussed easily and fairly openly. The posting rules that we might disagree with are there to protect Mumsnet. It'd be way easier for them to pull all GC threads.

We can call people what we like on genderhammer.com if that helps?

Maybe it’s best we don’t discuss LM at all.

LM is an immature, self-obsessed bore. There are far more interesting things for us to post about in FWR.

SPOFS - as per a pp you've misrepresented the thread.

I'm not in the slightest bit interested in anyone's physical attributes - rather their comments and actions.

The issue here is that there is a double standard at play here.

I've seen some damn nasty threads - for which the term pile on barely covers - that are allowed to stand, yet there is clearly a "void" where the legitimate questioning of comments made on social media by some people who are voluntarily in the public eye is deemed unacceptable.

IfIWasABirdIdFlyIn2ACeilingFan I get what you're saying. Maybe it's a dodgy mod. I can just imagine the shit LM would try to kick up, that's all.

Please dont post negative comments about LM on this thread or it will be zapped.

I'd like to talk about Gina Ford, actually

I can too turph and if that is what is happening then I would prefer HQ to be clear with us so that we just don’t start those threads or mention that person at all. But as it stands, all we have to work on is that those two threads were an issue, there is nothing in those deletion messages to tell us we can’t discuss LM at all.

But the thread was titled "Lily's breasts", which I feel was in poor taste.

If, for example, I started a thread in FWR all about Kim Kardashian's bottom, would that be okay? After all, she draws attention to it herself.

When they go low, we go high.

IfIWasABirdIdFlyIn2ACeilingFan but even if MNHQ gave us a solid reason, there would still be an argument about it. We will just have to keep guessing.