It works both ways

Exactly Nannylovesshopping I have to confess I felt the same as you.

I wasn’t asking about why rufus was banned, didn’t know he had been! Merely enquiring after his health, and worse case scenario, was he dead possibly due to Coronavirus, however as I said up thread, whatever. Do hope you are ok rufus!

Maybe Alex Salmond is a bit close to home for some Grans? Weinstein was in America after all and the other similar cases were in London.

Maybe the powers that be thought the Alex Salmond thread was a bit too risqué for us 'oldies' ?

Precisely, POGS. I didn’t say anything prejudicial in my Salmond OP and I only saw a couple of responses which didn’t seem prejudicial, either. There may have been later posts that were, but if so, I didn’t see them and why not delete just the individual post?

Thread deleted
Message from GNHQ: Hello, we're deleting this thread as speculation about ongoing cases can be prejudicial to legal proceedings. Thanks, GNHQ
--

This is my problem.

GNHQ has allowed thread after thread that has done the exact same, allowed threads to stand whilst court proceedings were taking place but never said a word.

I understand GNHQ have to be careful, due diligence and such but I am a tad uncomfortable ' of late' who/where/when there have been deletions and threads started by GNHQ.

Surely Alex Salmond can be discussed but if a post is deemed by GNHQ to cross the rubicon into being ' prejudicial to legal proceedings ' then delete that / those posts and advise those posters why. The whole thread does not need to deleted.

This is not a case of any desire to talk about Salmond on my part but I hope GNHQ will delete ALL other threads in their entirety when ' on going cases' are in court if this is the case. I think if not there may be reminders by some posters.

Lets hope Rufus is back posting soon. I agree with jane10 and fatgran

I agree. I thought the thread was an excellent one with calm and measured posts from many people.

We all were polite and calm and were able to give our thoughts and opinions on the matter being discussed.

I was able to read the other side of the matter in question and respected the responses. It gave me a lot to think about.

I wonder if the moderators are young people who think that older folk need to be kept in line by censorship?

I do hope not and I still feel that the matter we were discussing was done with a very good debate from all sides.

I have not heard a thing from Rufus for some days and I do hope he is OK.

I'm another one who wondered why the thread about a missing poster was deleted. It was very sad that a 92 year housebound member was cut off from contributing. We're all adults here. Can't we make our own minds up about whether or not to read a person's post?
Re that other thread: fair enough but there's already so much in the newspapers and on TV that it wasn't surprising that people were wanting to discuss it.

Thanks, Marydoll, I didn’t see that. Why has it been deleted though? In my OP I said that we must be careful not to prejudice the trial and GN have allowed other similar threads to stand such as this one. www.gransnet.com/forums/aibu/1207203-Rolf-Harris?pg=5&order=

Yes SueDonim I posted on the thread just before it was deleted, pointing out that whilst it is OK to report or quote things which have been said in open court, it is an offence to post or print a comment re the statement as this could influence the Jury for which the poster and the forum or website could be prosecuted. GN HQ did state why they had deleted the thread.

It's been deleted, Sue Donim

Thread deleted
Message from GNHQ: Hello, we're deleting this thread as speculation about ongoing cases can be prejudicial to legal proceedings. Thanks, GNHQ

I think I’ve had a thread about Alex Salmond deleted today. At least, I can’t find it.

I got a slap on the wrist as well, merely enquiring about whether rufus was ok, or succumbed to the Coronavirus, I thought GN was completely out of order, what are we, children to be admonished? Ah well, whatever.

I was concerned, the last time the poster stopped posting he was in hospital.

So do I easybee

I asked for an explanation about the deletion this morning of the thread you mention, and received the stock reply about a thread about a thread. Why does that matter anyway?
I also asked for a notification if a thread was removed but that was ignored.
I hope the poster returns, with renewed vigour.

That’s ok Seacliff , my post about doubting my memory over a thread I ‘thought’ I saw but was deleted got my thread promptly deleted AND a slap on the wrist !

I was told it was a thread about a thread ! And I’m sure this post may go the same way . ?

Agree Seacliff I had wondered how said poster was as well. Alot of posters like this contributer too.
I think you are right a high handed approach was taken.

Rather high handed behaviour from GNHQ this morning. Why do you deleting whole threads asking about a member who has apparently been temporarily banned?

People understandably wonder if he is OK, as he has been in ill health and is quite elderly. They don't know what's happened, if you keep deleting so quickly. I know he has upset someone, and has been temporarily banned after warnings. Why does that have to be a secret?

BlueBelle

I am concentrating on your point re the feed back from GNHQ as a generalised question and not the example thread you chose which was only an example, albeit a thread that prompted you to ask the question.

GNHQ ' IS ' very poor at giving the GN Users feed back and on that point I entirely agree with you.

I think there are so many examples of Users trying to alter GNHQ's methods over ' deletions ' in one form or another and for Gransnet to become more User friendly but I think the general picture is now we are simply going to get stock replies rather than engaging with us to make the sight more open and User friendly.

There is an automatic assumption in some mins that if you reject something as distasteful, you are a delicate flower who can't face reality. The truth is that many of us ARE facing reality and coping fine with it, but really don't wish to parade our moments of embarrassment and humiliation for a random stranger to "have a laugh" at.

The other truth is that however much the random stranger may protest that the laugh is a comradely one, and they have been there, done that, too, (from the account by the original poster in that thread, I doubt it - it read like fantasy) it is still a fact that it is one of the subjects that elicit snorts of merriment and disdain. We don't need that! whether we have recently "wet ourselves" dripped a bit on sneezing, or whether we still have that to look forward to.

I agree Bluebelle.
You can find something distasteful and inappropriate and consider that it might be exploiting others without clutching your pearls and being shocked.

I wasn’t in the least bit shocked gagajo I don’t like people being taken for a ride and yes I will out people who think it’s funny to tempt people to say things that they wouldn’t normally share about but get pulled into thinking it’s a genuine poster looking for help or validation
I just think HQ should be open about it and not just slide the thread off without a word They should be open and say ‘the thread entitled xyz has been removed as it was found the poster was not a genuine member’ or the thread xyz has been deleted because it broke the rules of being offensive’ or whatever reason they have for removing it
It feels dishonest to me to just slide it off into cyberspace without a word of explanation.