HQ. Why has a thread I started been deleted?

Perhaps I shouldn’t have been thinking about the dangers of porn aged 13 though
Lord knows what it’s like now

I always admired her, even in the 80s when I was a school girl.
I wrote her a letter, but never sent it, stupidly.
I’ve always absolutely loathed and been sickened by porn.

To be fair I often wonder about Mary Whitehouse, I disliked her at the time but maybe if we had had more Mary Whitehouses we wouldnt have children growing up exposed to utterly awful images.

The idea that GN is more lightly moderated than MN is just not true. There are threads on here that wouldng last 30 seconds on MN, I am often astounded having come from MN as to what you can say on here.

What’s wrong with Phil the Greek?

merlotgran your comment mentioning Mrs Whitehouse has made me think that if ever I change my username, I’ll come back as MaryWinehouse

It has been said in many posts on several threads that Andrew is guilty of allegations, no trial .

Phillip became a British citizen in 1947 yet is called ‘Phil The Greek’.

These are allowed

Curlywhirly the difference and disparity between what can be said on MN and GN is marked.
I had comments on here deleted which referred to things which were discussed as commonplace on MN.
(It was in relation to the DoE and his private life.)
I was told that ‘gossip and speculation are not allowed’.
Which is clearly ridiculous

But we’re old Curlywhirly and our opinions are clearly not to be taken seriously.

We even have our own self appointed Mary Whitehouse to ensure things don’t get out of hand.

The thread was obviously started because Meghan has had to admit to something and has been called out - how embarassing. The fact that Meghan 'forgot' about her input with the Finding Freedom book is not gossip. She has put on record that she did write emails regarding the book, it is truth not gossip. Consequently some people will find it quite difficult to be positive about the woman in light of this new revelation, and yes some may make unflattering comments, but surely if they were so offensive, just those comments should have been removed and not the whole thread - mumsnet thread is still there (or was last night, all 15 pages of it).

But only on GN can you learn from people who absolutely know these things, that Harry's is caused by that nasty, scheming actress, for her gain and for her gain only.

Mental health thing ? Both of them have spoken of having mental illnesses

merlotgran

^I do remember thinking that just the mention of the word "Meghan" is like opening a dam that lets the vitriol spew out.^

Another exaggeration.

Aye, whatever.

Yes, I'm afraid some of it is. The mental health thing. The belief that she will run for president. Unless you actually live in their house, you don't know.

And people don't like being told that they can't differentiate between truth and gossip.

I do remember thinking that just the mention of the word "Meghan" is like opening a dam that lets the vitriol spew out.

Another exaggeration.

It was not based on gossip,

No, I'm not merlotgran

I wish I'd screenshotted it. All those topics were covered, except maybe the President one. That might have been another thread.

I do remember thinking that just the mention of the word "Meghan" is like opening a dam that lets the vitriol spew out.

Well as moderators are you know human beings there will of course be variations in interpreting the guidelines. They absolutely wont care less which side of the debate you are on. They are at work and wont care less about sides.

Alegrias1

I saw and contributed to the thread. The topic and OP looked fine, but within the first half dozen posts, if I remember correctly, we had covered lying to archbisops, ruining H's health, being a lying manipulative actress and, I think, planning to run for President. I think its fair to say none of these were presented in a balanced and fair way.

I went out for an hour after being harangued about whether I thought all that was true. Came back, thread gone.

There are other threads about M all over the forum. I don't expect it got deleted because it was about M. I expect it got deleted because it was a character assassination based on gossip.

I think you are exaggerating.

dragonfly46

I am astonished that HQ allow name-calling and ganging up on other posters to stand and yet delete a post, before it has got started, on a public figure!
Does it depend on who is on duty at the time?

Exactly dragonfly just how I feel.

What is - the spirit of the site ? I can’t find any explanations

I saw and contributed to the thread. The topic and OP looked fine, but within the first half dozen posts, if I remember correctly, we had covered lying to archbisops, ruining H's health, being a lying manipulative actress and, I think, planning to run for President. I think its fair to say none of these were presented in a balanced and fair way.

I went out for an hour after being harangued about whether I thought all that was true. Came back, thread gone.

There are other threads about M all over the forum. I don't expect it got deleted because it was about M. I expect it got deleted because it was a character assassination based on gossip.

Me neither but maybe it wasn’t up long?

Lucca is right
I didn’t see yesterday’s thread at all, so I can’t comment

I do think that we should have a thread about Markle
It seems very odd that we don’t.
Is everyone scared to start one now?