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

I don't know Carmenere, there are an awful lot of GF devotees out there, who might think that Mumsnet was a really spiteful website if they read some of the comments made about GF personally.

I also wonder whether the team who have spent the last 6 years getting Mumsnet up & running might feel that they have an awful lot to lose.

I am very much hoping that Anchovy is right from a legal perspective & would just like to add my support to the Mumsnet team again.

\link{http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/it&law/c10_main.htm\cyberspace and the law}

A standard settlement is an apology (with an agreement as to prominence: newspapers ideally like to make libels on front pages and apologies down the back in small print somewhere - offended parties would like the apology as front page headlines. Where you end up depends on the bargaining position/seriousness of the libel) coupled with a payment either to the individual or to a charity of their choice.

An offer of an apology/settlement is always looked favourably upon by the courts, (unless you are a cynical repeat offender with a fairly blatant disregard for the truth).

I agree that GF does have a lot to lose, Carmenere. Individual posters and the MN team could stand to lose everything though. However, you are right that the publicity would be devastating, so hopefully that will give her pause.

It doesn't matter greensleeves, if someone sues you and you don't have the money you go bankrupt. It is a very real possibility for some people if this does go ahead. If you have a house you can lose it. It is very serious indeed. People have been sued for comments on websites, so I guess there are ways they can find you.

As mumsnet have posted before it is worth reading what constitutes libel and remembering you are responsible for every comment you say in public.

My instinct is that anchovy is right (and that GF and AC ect are enjoying us getting our knickers in a twist). The reason being that if this sham ever came anywhere near a court there wouldn't be a newspaper, a website, a local rag or a Parish freesheet unnotified by members of mumsnet damning GF. She has far more than mumsnet to lose - that is after all her main objection. Bring it on GF, that's what I say

But surely she doesn't expect individual posters to "settle" in this way? Ordinary people don't have that sort of money. I don't really understand how she can sue individual posters on an anonymous website - aren't our details confidential?

That's a good question Pruni.

Never mind that MN did make it clear to us and those posts are available as a matter of public record, of course....

The problem is that individuals may not be able to afford to settle, or go to court. I know I wouldn't be able to. I'm sure everyone on here would want to apologise if they had caused personal upset to anyone, but I'm not sure how that could be done without making the whole thing 100 times worse.

Q for a lawyer: does reasonable terms of settlement refer to money or could it mean something else?

hear hear Marina

Ann Clough's first message said this:

"Further, as a result of Mumsnet's failure to make clear to its members that Gina Ford has no intention to take legal steps to restrain
reasonable debate, and its refusal to agree reasonable terms of settlement to resolve these serious libels of her, she was forced to conclude that she had no alternative but to issue court proceedings, which she intends to do."

From that I would surmise that she is hoping to settle, so isn't expecting to have to go to court (which I agree would be very damaging for her).

I hope you are right too Anchovy, I really do

Potentially individual posters Greensleeves, and mumsnet is owned by individuals so they would be personally liable I guess. If she sues, and of course we all hope she won't, then it will be individuals up in court (or settling before court as is often advised int hese cases).

There was a message about it from Justine a while ago but I can't find it.

Hear hear Marina.
Thanks for your view on this, Anchovy - let's hope you're right.

MNHQ and individual posters, greensleeves. Very sorry for anyone directly implicated in this, but for everyone who uses this site too. We all stand to lose if MN is seriously damaged by this.
Justine, Carrie, Rachel, Tech, JJ and Abby - you must mobilise us all if there is anything we can do to help you and the individuals threatened. You have to be aware that although people may not post at all, or only in the most circumspect manner, there is a mass of support for you at the moment.

Anchovy, that is reassuring to hear. Lets hope it is just no more than stroppy letter writing & hollow threats.

I repeat, I honestly would not bother getting horrified and worried.

I would also be very surprised if MNHQ did not have some sort of insurance covering themselves for this.

doesn't the whole (alleged) Ginababe thing put a bit of a spanner in the works of her case anyway? Would she really want that to come out in court (assuming it was her of course)?

Is she threatening to sue individual posters, though? Or MN as an organisation?

I don't usually go on GF threads, but I'm horrified and worried at this.
Thinking of you WWW and MNHQ.

I am a lawyer, albeit not a libel specialist by any stretch of the imagination. I would be buggeringly surprised if any lawyer would recommend bringing a libel action in circumstances like this. Any law suit is notoriously difficult to bring and there does not seem to be a clear cut case here. To succeed a libel has to lower the reputation of the libelled person among "right thinking people". There are also a number of defences such as "fair comment" -(for example it would be an entirely fair comment to say that you do not think controlled crying works - I'm sure Penelope Leach says the same and it is a moot point). Making an apology is also a very relevant. The rest is all a bit of handbags and playground name calling and unless I am missing something hardly seems enough to bring a libel action. I think a lot of people think there are some interesting test cases waiting to happen re libel and the internet (they may already have happened: the internet was just a twinkle in Al Gore's eye when I studied libel) but this doesn't feel like it.

I know you all think that lawyers do nothing other than sit on their fat backsides and trade in other people's misery but that is far from the case. I repeat, very few lawyers will ever recommend a libel action unless it is extremely clear cut: the claimant always has an awful lot to lose and you also have to consider whether you will actually recover any damages if they ever were awarded.

Of course, writing stroppy letters that put the wind up people is our bread and butter work .

Of course if she does go ahead, she will stop being known as a childcare guru and become "that woman who sued a load of mothers." Great PR machine she's got. Not.

Whether she wins or loses, this will undoubtedly damage her reputation far more than any wild remarks made by posters on Mumsnet. But that's no comfort to the people she's threatening.

How do we know which individidual posters are implicated? Surely lots and lots of people have made comments?