Gransnet or Nannynet?

No Soutra, it's not

What a strange question Soutra

Is causing gratuitous offence suitable for anybody?

absent I never have and never would compare my small joke to Swift's masterpiece except to make the point that censorship on the grounds of taste can have far reaching effects, and that causing offence has a long and notable history, but , apparently, is considered unsuitable for grans.

trisher That's the second time you have mentioned Swift. Are you suggesting that your post is comparable to A Modest Proposal. If so, I really wish I had seen that masterpiece of satire.

I do like jokes to make me laugh. Probably because it's something I hadn't thought of before. The joke in the OP, from the Huff Post, made me laugh out loud.

I personally don't find it particularly funny to suggest a well-known dead paedophile, or a locked up one, as Children's minister, but only because it's a bit "done before". Just a bit lame really. But not in bad taste. That's just silly and small minded.

I think it depends on what is actually said about those topics.

Topics I personally find beyond the bounds of acceptable would include paedophiles, learning disabilities, physical handicap, bereavement, terminal illness, and physical cruelty or abuse ( of people or indeed animals) .
Does that make me narrow minded?

So be it.

Oh and Swift would presumably be deleted as well!

Well I'm all for transparency and openness-so here's my e-mail

We're just getting in touch as you mentioned you didn't receive an email to let you know one of your posts had been deleted. So sorry about this, we always email a poster if we are having to delete something of theirs, but it looks as though something untoward happened on this occasion.

As you may know, there are a few of us who moderate the site and it's our job to make a judgement call when posts are reported to us. Though we don't usually delete satirical posts or ones that some members may feel are in bad taste, we do act when we feel the post goes a little beyond that, which we felt this one did.

Obviously not everyone will agree on what goes too far but, as moderators, it is our duty to make that call - not always an easy task, but we do our best. Again, apologies that you weren't informed of the deletion straight away.

All best,

So no question of libel, purely a question of taste. So please please Gransnet let's have a rating system why should those of us with broad minds who appreciate jokes (even ones in bad taste) be restricted to the mundane and sometimes tame posts some find acceptable? It would cut down on notifications and make everyone much happier.

I can understand that any correspondence between a GNer and GNHQ would be confidential.

Would be quite nice if we could all know why it was deleted.

pompa, I had thought that was GNHQ's usual practice, but it seems that trisher did not receive any explanation.

I had already said that earlier
" I would hope that GN gave a full explanation to the poster why their post was deleted, otherwise how do they know here GN set those boundaries."

But it would have been a good idea for GNHQ to notify trisher of what guidelines s/he was thought to have contravened.

Jings gave a clear warning about the swearing, so if you are against that, don't read it.

I don't like swearing, especially in a thread that had previously been pleasant. The warning is perfect, at home if a TV show contains certain things, extreme violence, mistreatment of women, unnecessary swearing, I change channel. Simples.

I didn't like the content of the post, but that was a personal opinion, and after reading the first post, I read no further. Whether the content was within forum rules, only GN can decide.

Whomever hosts a forum, set the rules and when contributes join knowing those conditions and should accept those rules. By all means ask for changes, but in this case it is GN that decide the format of the forum.

X posts Ana

The OP on that thread hasn't been deleted, eloethan, only trisher's joke, about which, as I didn't see it, I can't comment.

The entire thread wasn't deleted, Eloethan, only one post!

I thought the post made some good points: (there was a warning about the explicit language used and DC was referred to in less than complimentary terms)

A Pro Capital Punishment MP for justice minister.

An anti gay marriage advocate for equalities minister.

In light of this it was suggested that Bin Laden might have been just the man for heading up the MoD!

Surely none of those statements are libellous and it can only be the choice language which caused the deletion?

I agree, trisher. I can only suppose that HQ worried about some legal aspect of what you posted. I hadn't read it. Either that or whoever was on duty that day was someone with not much experience and wanted to play safe. I think the whole episode warrants The Order of the Shrug medal.

Nelliemoser there is the question of who decides what is inappropriate or unacceptable. I understand that some people have different perspectives on things and I really have no wish to upset them or force them to read things they find distasteful. On the other hand there will be people who don't mind such things, who realise the value of saying the unthinkable to draw attention to something or make a point. If Gransnet is going to remain a valuable forum it needs to address this not just delete something without a valid reason.

BTW, since I'm on a clarity binge, one is not forced to do anything on Gransnet or any other forum. They are voluntary and what one says on them is a completely free choice for each person.