Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

<<whispers>> Was there ever any clarification about whether the issue with GF was swearing on here?

588 replies

hunkermunker · 22/05/2006 15:46

MN Towers, if you'd prefer it if this was deleted, please do so.

But I'm nosy. And I want to know. Please?

(I didn't swear in this, though I was tempted to...childish or what?!)

OP posts:
JoolsToo · 25/05/2006 19:06

shall we organise a march - banners and all?

If it's legal for those cartoon protestors should be ok for some mums

snafu · 25/05/2006 19:05

Perhaps MN could start charging £40 p.a. for membership of its talk boards? That should nicely cover any legal costs.

harmonicacarrier · 25/05/2006 19:05

deleting defamatory postings is one thing.
but insisting that anything derogatory is deleted... well, good lord.
how very precious. how very precious indeed.

harmonicacarrier · 25/05/2006 19:03

oh well I am glad we have cleared that up
she just wants MONEY then?
nice
as she is so poor and the people running this website are so rich?
Justine - are you getting any legal advice? libel is not my area (and I am not currently practising/insured) but I am sure there are lawyers on here who would be able to help you. I would happily review anything on an informal basis....

trefusis · 25/05/2006 19:03

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

JoolsToo · 25/05/2006 19:02

as regards No 2 on the list - am shocked that GF would think that she's discussed that often. Sure she's getting discussed now for obvious reasons, but how often before all this furore?

Conceited or wot?

has anyone contacted the press yet?

SaintGeorge · 25/05/2006 18:58

Agree. Total ban and we all police posts as per hunker's excellent suggestion.

Ditto to fund raising or reinstated subs too.

Original poster
hunkermunker · 25/05/2006 18:53

Also makes it clearer for us all to police, since any mention can just be "We don't discuss GF on MN, for legal reasons" as an explanation to any newbie and any one of us can report the post and mention on said thread that we've reported it.

I don't like it, but I think it's the only way it's possible to work it.

OP posts:
snafu · 25/05/2006 18:53

Oh, Justine, how bloody awful for you all. I am so angry on your behalf - it is a farcical situation.

Anything that can be done to help, please let us know. That includes fundraising, reinstating payment of subs, whatever you need.

And I would be thrilled to comply with a blanket ban of any mention of anything to do with this woman. Positive or negative, ban it all.

Blandmum · 25/05/2006 18:51

I also feel that a total ban is the way to go. As Hunker says things could be misunderstood. So for example you could says that 'X's advice is totaly wonderful', since you can't hear a voice you could think it was a sarcastic comment, or ironic.

far better to ban all discussion of this person and her methods, to avoid any misunderstanding and possible further legal action.

Much better all round

Tinker · 25/05/2006 18:51

Sad & Angry

Original poster
hunkermunker · 25/05/2006 18:38

I agree that a ban of any mention has to be the only way forward - even "positive" comments can be misconstrued, plus since the person's name is also the brand, I don't see how you won't have "grey area" posts iyswim. Won't post an example, if you don't mind...

OP posts:
expatinscotland · 25/05/2006 18:36

And I will be bumping this just now for any members who are in the legal profession or connected to the press.

Angry
expatinscotland · 25/05/2006 18:35

WHY can't ALL mention of her be banned entirely? Why? Just to avoid anything she might find 'defamatory'?

Why should this site be manipulated by her and her team to provide only opinions which she considers acceptable?

BAN ALL MENTION OF HER ENTIRELY!

I would gladly toss in a few bob or whatever I had rattling around to support whatever MN needs.

PanicPants · 25/05/2006 18:34

:(

SparklyGothKat · 25/05/2006 18:26

OMGosh!!! :(

tortoiseshell · 25/05/2006 18:18
Sad
Marina · 25/05/2006 18:18

:( Thanks for the clarification.
You know you can count on us to do what we can to help. XXX

Blandmum · 25/05/2006 18:17

hells bells.

What bundle says.

bundle · 25/05/2006 18:16

oh Justine, what a tough situation. you know you can rely on us for support, including rattling tins for donations Smile

Original poster
hunkermunker · 25/05/2006 18:14

Oh, Justine Sad

Would write more, but DS2 is currently filling his nappy, loudly and copiously. He's an early critic, shall we say?

OP posts:
MNHQ
JustineMumsnet · 25/05/2006 18:12

Dear all,
We have so far avoided posting too much about all this as we have no wish to inflame the situation but it’s clear that many members understandably have concerns, so we thought it best to clarify a few things.

Gina Ford, via her solicitors, has made the following six demands:

  1. That we publish a statement in which clarify that Gina Ford’s objection is to personal attacks not criticism of her methods.
  2. That we implement a procedure whereby we review postings on a regular basis each day and delete any postings which are derogatory and/or defamatory of Gina Ford.
  3. That we delete a list of 21 specified threads from our boards, archives and all other records.
  4. That we prevent search engines producing summaries or links to defamatory material previously posted on Mumsnet
  5. That we pay damages to Gina Ford (unspecified)
  6. That we pay all Gina Ford’s legal costs in respect to Mumsnet

Essentially we have agreed or partially agreed to comply with numbers one to four to Gina Ford’s lawyers’ satisfaction, but not agreed to points 5&6. Consequently Gina Ford intends to litigate against Mumsnet.

Mumsnet is indeed a limited company but in cases of libel it is individual publishers whose assets are at risk rather than companies.

It is our view, though we cannot say for sure, that though Ms Ford’s lawyers have previously threatened legal action against one Mumsnet member at least to our knowledge, the intention is to take proceedings against Mumsnet rather than individual posters. Please do contact us if you have reason to believe otherwise and we will happily give as much advice and assistance as we can.

Many thanks to all who have offered support and good wishes. We are, needless to say, extremely sad that this situation has both arisen and escalated to such proportions. We’ll keep you posted with regard to further events.

Best,
MN Towers

ruty · 25/05/2006 16:44

agree Caligula.

Caligula · 25/05/2006 15:55

It's because the libel law is there to protect the rich, Ruty. There is no legal aid for libel cases, so there's no question of anyone on a low or even average income ever being able to use it.

It should be abolished. Or at least reformed.

ruty · 25/05/2006 14:42

sounds reassuring Anchovy.