HQ. Why has a thread I started been deleted?

eazybee

That is precisely it. The thread was deleted so it is impossible to see exactly what was said. It may well have been worth discussing.
The statement referring to Harry's mental health issues:
And blame his wife for causing them?
Is that OK? (clue - no its not)
precludes any sort of discussion because the poster, with no authority whatsoever, has decided it is inappropriate.

Just a general comment. If a thread includes speculation of this kind presented as fact, who can be surprised if it gets deleted? A poster isn't surprised. A poster is quite surprised anyone thinks otherwise.

A poster doesn't have the power you think she does.

A poster feels like a character in GoT. ??

Meghan must know that Big Macs are the best constipation cure, sorry I mean you must know Galaxy.....

Oh no! Too much information.

I forgot, from the horses mouth.

Alegrias1 Valar Morghulis

valar dohaeris

I'm all in favour of any posts with anti-vax views being deleted - and promptly.

Does that apply to Grannies too?

Bumping to keep active. I didn't see the thread but am now really curious as to why it was deleted, rather than individual member's comments.
I once had a thread deleted and it still angers me though by now I have forgotten the subject.

Do you think GN look at the forums on a regular basis to check them or do you think they rely on posters to report?

They rely on posters hitting the report button.

Pearl Clutchers’ paradise.

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?

In today’s Telegraph.

Agree dragonfly.
Maybe it’s one of the bullies who likes to press the report button. We will never know.

‘Pearl clutchers’ ... that made me laugh! Thank you.

Maudi
We don’t have to think about it. They have told us many times that they rely on posters to report.

Urmston ???

Maybe you should try posting it again Merlot or maybe not as it may get you a lifetime ban like other posters!

I didn’t see the thread my only thought was it depends on how the title/opening paragraph was phrased ?

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?

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

Me neither but maybe it wasn’t up long?

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.

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

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.

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.