Advanced search

Surgeon demands MNHQ hand over posters identities

(22 Posts)

MNHQ have commented on this thread.

Goingtobeawesome Sun 29-Jan-17 14:17:34

here. Daily mail

spottyswat Sun 29-Jan-17 16:59:20

Any response from MNHQ?

itsbetterthanabox Sun 29-Jan-17 17:03:03

Why did the high court rule this?
Surely we are allowed to criticise a private business?
This article tells us very little

hesterton Sun 29-Jan-17 17:09:03

Mumsnet commented that they refused to hand anything over until forced to by court.

I don't see how they could change that.

And if no libel has been written, hopefully that will not stand in court.

HopelesslydevotedtoGu Sun 29-Jan-17 17:11:15

Can someone who has read it briefly say what the issue is so we don't have to all click on the Daily Fail link?

hesterton Sun 29-Jan-17 17:13:20

Not clear. Didn't quote the posts but named the 2 posters.

LineysRun Sun 29-Jan-17 17:15:58

I'm not prepared to rehash it as that could be construed as a fresh libel. Hold your nose and read the article.

mirokarikovo Sun 29-Jan-17 17:17:13

Wow. Well that's a really bad idea Jesper.

The fact of you taking such action will now be in the public domain for ever.

I would never ever choose to trust a surgeon that tried to gag or sue a former patient. The fact that you want to silence them speaks volumes. You get good reputation by having as many as possible previous patients to be fully satisfied and sing your praises by doing a good job. You don't worry about the one or two who are dissatisfied due to bad luck - consumers expect a few negative voices, that is normal and is largely ignored if the positive voices are much more numerous.

You have done your reputation more harm yourself than any MN poster ever did.

80sMum Sun 29-Jan-17 17:17:36

"Can someone who has read it briefly say what the issue is so we don't have to all click on the Daily Fail link?"

^^ Please could someone cut and paste the essentials here? I too have no wish to click on a Daily Mail link and contribute to the readership of that most odious of rags!

spottyswat Sun 29-Jan-17 17:22:27

I found out about it through a Facebook group I'm on. Basically the surgeon does face surgery, filling in holes and wrinkles and stuff. A thread on here was singing his praises and then 2 posters had negative things to say. The thread was deleted when first legal action took place but surgeon went further to get their names.

I read the article, but it couldn't say what the posters had said as their comments were deleted long ago.

That is all 3rd hand so happy for anyone to correct me. The dm article was very uninformative and you don't need to read it.

eurochick Sun 29-Jan-17 17:23:26

I hate clicking on Fail links but that was worth it for the hilarious comments.

Mungobungo Sun 29-Jan-17 17:43:21

The article gives very little information and is more about the surgeon himself than what has been alleged and the reason that the court had ordered it.
As this is now apparently going through legal proceedings it's probably not prudent to open it up again. I'm sure those who have been named in the DFail article are feeling exposed enough

AVirginLitTheCandle Sun 29-Jan-17 18:20:32

How would MNHQ know their real identities?

Figure17a Sun 29-Jan-17 18:33:39

"^ Please could someone cut and paste the essentials here? I too have no wish to click on a Daily Mail link and contribute to the readership of that most odious of rags!"

but you want someone else to do it for you. How does that work? grin

RebelRogue Sun 29-Jan-17 18:37:36

Avirgin ip address,email address,and whatever other info they've put on when singing up.

Stormwhale Sun 29-Jan-17 18:38:39

Oops. Bet those posters are shitting themselves.

Poor move by the surgeon though, he doesn't come across well in this.

RebelRogue Sun 29-Jan-17 18:39:22

There's nothing in the article really. Just how awesome the doctor is,singing himself praises, mentions the nn of the two posters involved and the name of the threads(threads and posts were deleted) and MNHQ's stance of "we're not revealing any details until a court order says we have to".

EdithWeston Sun 29-Jan-17 18:40:11

There's a thread in SiteStuff which you might be interested in.

The way MN handles complaints of libel hasn't changed. I really can't see why The Times thought this newsworthy

EdithWeston Sun 29-Jan-17 18:40:30

RebelRogue Sun 29-Jan-17 18:41:25

Oh and apparently they also requested messages between the two posters?!

He comes off as a twat tbh,it's bad form to silence bad reviews generally,even more so when it's just two people,on an internet forum,answering a specific question about the procedure and his practices.

GimmeeMoore Sun 29-Jan-17 20:29:29

The surgeon has a right to protect his professional reputation,it's his livelihood

AmyGMumsnet (MNHQ) Mon 30-Jan-17 10:57:48

Hi all

There have been a couple of threads about this over the weekend - you might like to take a look at what KateMumsnet has posted over here which clarifies how current libel and defamation laws relate to MN and MNers.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now