Gransnet or Nannynet?

I agree with riverwalk's comments. Along with being seen as patronising and ageist, I rather think that the reach/targeting to specific demographics has something to do with gnhq's decision making.

I also agree with what riverwalk said.

I agree with riverwalk also.

Agree riverwalk

I didn't find trisher's post offensive.

I've only twice posted on Mumsnet but I do read with interest some of their threads.

One recent thread could have been libelous IMO - it was jokey and gossipy about various celebrities that members had met/heard about - they named names and made quite serious/salacious allegations.

The law of the land is just that and equally applies to both sites and all sites, so I can only conclude that as certain posts and threads are deleted here on GN but wouldn't raise an eyebrow on MN, that HQ think we are somehow delicate and sensitive.

Just because we are grandparents doesn't mean we have to be protected - it's patronising and ageist.

Perhaps, or presumably, there is a bad taste rating system already at headquarters.

Probably jbf

Sorry Trisha, I was not criticising your viewpoint, my comment was not aimed at any GNer, I was just stating my view of the way the site is moderated and run.
I said earlier that I would be in favour of a rating system.

Overthinking it Trisher?

But true.

God, that was patronising!

To be fair, I think this all happened at the weekend, when one of the less experienced of the HQrs was standing in. We really should cut her some slack. If it's the one I think it might have been, she is very sweet.

Exactly Riverwalk.

sorry thatbags should probably have said "I prefer not to read further".
A rating system would give you an idea of the sort of things that might be said. So my suggestion-
Level 1-one star-green (any method of indication you like)-chat and banter, lighthearted posts absolutely nothing controversial.
Level 2 2stars-amber- some degree of argument and discussion- no bad taste, no swearing, .
Level 3 3 stars-red- free argument and discussion with posts only deleted if the content is libellous or something which could be challenged in law.

I don't understand what you mean, kitty.

How does one know one prefers not to read something until one has read it, at least some of it?

I agree with your argument about people being too happy to report trisher. I wonder if it would help if we could see who started a post?

pompa I don't object to people who want an anodyne unconfrontational forum and I respect other people's boundaries, which is why I think we need a rating system. I have my own likes and dislikes as far as posts go and there are times when I prefer not to read something. But I am old enough and wise enough to know that these are my personal preferences and I have no wish to inflict them on others. I do think there are some people with very narrow views who would restrict what others say and I don't see why they should be the ones to push GNHQ into deleting posts. If there was a rating system they would be able to avoid such posts and let the rest of us get on with it.
kittylester could do, might do. Watch this space! But busy with this just now.

In support of GNHQ, I think they have got the moderation of this site spot on. You can't please all the people all of the time.

Trisher, if you really want to have the debate start another thread in a different way! gnhq haven't stifled debate, just your way of starting it.

I'm surprised the post was deleted - it had a satirical wit and I can't imagine who would be shocked or offended. It was along the lines of something that would be on HIGNFY.

A 'nanny' site indeed - we're not children and didn't need protecting from the post.

It was a bad taste joke but it had more to it, I hoped to make people think:1 about people with inappropriate views being given public appointments: 2. that the 2 people concerned had close connections with the establishment and would once have been seen as ideal for the job: 3. that this government and the establishment still have a poor record on investigating and prosecuting child abuse at high levels.
Maybe it wouldn't have made everybody think all of these things but it would have kept the subject in the area of public debate. Gransnet have censored it and stopped any real discussion.

Eh?!

(searches for a point where bad taste is so bad it can no longer be described as bad taste but has to have another term applied to it. And what the other term would be)

HQ said your post went "a bit beyond" mere bad taste, trisher. Mildly put but very clear that bad taste was not the problem.

No. I don't think it would be right to cause gratuitous offence.

But I don't see the connection here.