HQ. Why has a thread I started been deleted?

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.

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.

It was not based on 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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 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.

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

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

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

What’s wrong with Phil the Greek?

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.

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.

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.

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

I remember her criticising the singing detective, which I watched at the time. They (including me probably) laughed at her. However looking at that programme now it was largely an old man perving over a young woman, it was about as progressive as Benny Hill.

Yes, I remember that.
And Dennis Potter was obsessed with that actual actress in real life.
Their relationship was based on Potter’s and hers.
I can’t remember her name, I’ll look it up, but he wrote Black Eyes about her too.

Threads about MM are usually full of venom and vitriol - she does seem to bring out the worst in posters and it's much the same on Mumsnet, but the moderaters there seem to tolerate it more.

As many have said before, there's a rather patronising attitude towards Gransnet and what our delicate eyes can read. Some years back a thread here was deleted because it was gossipy about celebrities, meanwhile over on MN there was a very long thread on the sexual perversions, mistresses, dirty-doings about various living household names!

I think it's ageist.

sodapop

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.

I'll add to that
Recently I asked for a couple of posts of mine to be deleted because I thought they were too personal (family anecdotes).
Despite several pleas, GNHQ just ignored me, didn't even respond except for the automatic email, and the posts remained.

They own all our posts and only delete what suits them to delete.

I didnt know that fanny, she was right then. It's very interesting. I find the term pearl clutchers interesting as well, it often means older women who are trying to establish boundaries around behaviour.

Is it just that politicians and the Royal Family accept that they are fair game and won’t sue, while Meghan will?

Galaxy

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.

Off topic slightly, but would make an interesting thread. Why don’t you start a thread about it Galaxy.