Moderation and deleting posts

Oh, for fuck's sake!

Would you like the poster to stand in the corner for the rest of the lesson day?

Well that would be a start - seriously, stop knee jerking and think - until I reported it only one other person thought there was anything wrong with what was posted so why shouldn't HQ remind all of us about confidentiality? If more people had been concerned about the children's right to anonymity and less concerned with hearing the details, reporting wouldn't have been necessary.

phoenix has accepted the deletion of one of her posts with a good grace; and clearly understands why and that Gransnet has acted properly.

Even before that post, I was aware of where this was happening, as will many others have been.

Confidentiality is in my bones too (doctor's wife and SW) so I understand where GT is coming from; but I have no criticism of how this has been handled by Grasnet.

I started the thread, and do not regard the responses as "gossipy" - people are expressing concern, whilst also being aware that we are not in possession of all the facts.

It is sometimes a good thing when the public response to an official decision brings the professionals back down to earth and makes them realise that there are some decisions that the public regard with concern.

As I have said before, there are some areas of social work where it is possible to lose perspective over time. I suspect that this case might fall into that category.

Social workers in these cases do an unenviable job - but they also need to reflect society's attitudes in their practice; just as medicine needs to have an eye to the moral aspects of its practice and how these concur with the prevailing public morality. There is a difficult balance to be struck here - their decisions cannot be subject to the views of a "string 'em up" minority, but neither can they be totally out of synch with the prevailing mores.

The red tops are all gossip. News is gossip and turning a blind eye is what social services have done. In a small community nothing is secret. The only people who don't know are often the social services.

I wholeheartedly agree with you GrannyTwice. The post was ill advised to say the least and the family could easily be identified from what was said on it.

I find much of the thread worrying. So far we want to remove the team of social workers involved from this area of work and take the children away from their mother!!

As former SW, I do understand the challenge of dealing with such cases day after day. I am not aware that any poster has suggested removing the team of SWs; my comment was that it is hard to do this for a continuous period of time and still do a good job. I have seen how it is possible for a team to talk itself into an idea that anyone looking in from the outside and applying common sense would regard as unwise. Being steeped in this sadness for years does impair judgement, however good the supervision might be.

The central dilemma is about trying to keep the children with their mother, whilst also keeping them safe. From what we are aware of, the decision that has been taken does not seem a wise one, if only on the grounds of physical safety. Care home managers for the elderly are not allowed to lock people in their rooms for very sound reasons.

My issue was that HQ should sometimes explain on the thread itself why a particular post was deleted to remind people of the fact that this is an open forum and the legal rights of others - eg ET, these two children. I remember a little while ago an utterly disgraceful thread about MM- HQ had to be hectored into eventually deleting the whole thread - there were shocking innuendos about the parents on it which verged on the libellous but HQ never explained really why they eventually deleted.

I agree that a gentle reminder to all concerned from time to time, is very necessary.
Somewhere I think on the site, gransnet speaks about this being a community.
Yes it is, but posters do need to be aware that it is totally a public, on display community, and a gentle reminder will help.

I think social work has actually become more risk averse over the last ten or so years, particularly since the death of Peter Connelly, which is why I am even more surprised by this situation. What I became aware of about five years ago however was a shift in attitude by the courts towards risks from sex offenders. I believe there was case law that made it more difficult to secure care orders where children were living with a convicted sex offender; the view of the courts being that historical abuse against another child did not necessarily increase the risk of abuse against a child in the present . Most sw's I knew thought this was daft but it obviously affected practice and meant that sw's had to try to work with these situations and to build in protective measures. So it is possible that this apparently crazy plan is a plan enforced by the courts against the social workers' recommendations. It's not always social workers that get things wrong, but of course they can't discuss individual cases due to confidentiality. Just a thought.

Oops think I should have posted this on the other thread

Mishap - the thread isn't gossipy overall - it was the post that brought in identifying details. And tbh I was disappointed at the lack of response to that on the thread- it seemed like no one thought it was an issue hence why I thought HQ should say something- it's clealy not enough just to tell the poster is it? Not like a personal attack deletion when everyone is clear why it happened ( says she )

So come on HQ - but I suppose we've done your job for you now haven't we?

Essentially there is no difference, on the news and politics threads at least, between posting on Gransnet and writing a letter to the editor of a newspaper.
Not even the editor of the sleaziest red top would have dared to publish a letter that could identify the children in this case, so I agree with you Grannytwice that in those two forums at least, GN should be much more robustly and actively moderated if only to to protect itself legally.
Posters slagging each other off on the other threads is perhaps rather different!

Gransnet are not going to read everything though. It doesnt on mumsnet.
I have been hesitating for days about telling them about another post elsewhere. But as you say, they have light moderation, so I have not.
Also, I am a newbie, and assumed, with the post last night, that others would report it.
Not all pas are reported either, by a long way, so I assume that that is how gransnet likes the site. It is up to them <shrugs>

No soon it isn't just up to them - it's also up to us as posters and human beings - to report when it's serious ( and we may need help in defining that eg libel, breaching court orders for anononymity ) and if not sure to perhaps say something on the thread - with the MM I made my views known on the thread itself but eventually felt I had to report as it was a) legally dubious and b) how would someone connected to the parents feel if they read it? HQ might consider the reputation of GN as well apart from its legal obligations

I understand the view that it is reasonable to ask GNHQ to explain the reasons for deleting a post, where those reasons might be ones that other posters need to take on board for the future.

But I get it wrong sometimes GT. So now I hold back.
Does just saying something on a thread help though? Gransnet dont read everything.

Soon - yes sometimes saying something can help - others might support you and the 'offending' poster might rein back or ask themselves for a deletion. That's a better way than reporting but not always the appropriate way- it depends.

Oh ok. I would definitely have said something last night.

No offence phoenix by the way. You wanted to post it, and that was up to you.

I still think we should be able to delete our own posts as sometimes it's easy to write something and regret it almost straight away and it takes ages for HQ to act. As for the thread itself it wasn't gossipy in any way just showed the concern that we all have for these poor children .

Sometimes Grannytwice, it's only worth knee jerk.

Over reaction, or what?

We moderated the thread on the head. And someone reported the post (quite rightly imo, though it wasn't me) and it was deleted. Job finished.

On the thread. Not on the head

(It was a tiinsy bit gossipy (IMHO) So what?