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

I've been pondering all of this...

It is a trusim that, if this whole saga were to go to court, the only real winners would, as usual, be the lawyers.

Speaking as someone who has a certain level of support for both sides of this dispute (i.e. I have used TCLB book successfully in the past with dd1 and I also like to use mumsnet), I have been trying to imagine a solution that would be mutually acceptable to all parties.

I wondered if an open letter appealling to GF from the mumsnet members might help to calm things down and dissuade her from proceeding with legal action which, I imagine, would be damaging for all parties.

Haven't got time to draft something properly now, but was wondering about something including the following points:

1. An apology for any personal criticisms made of GF herself. The majority were made to criticise the book and/or the methods contained therein; some, unfortunately went too far. Whilst members reserve the right to continue to criticise methods etc, we apologise as a community for any hurt or offence caused by criticisms of a more personal nature. We as a community will desist from making any other such posts in future for the sake of mumsnet.

1. Many parents find a lot of practical and emotional support from belonging to websites such as mumsnet. Many 'innocent' mums are going to suffer if mumsnet is forced to close as a result of this action.

1. Legal action is ultimately likely to be damaging and costly for all parties.

1. This has been was sponteneously organised by mumsnet members to show their support for MN HQ. It has not been organised by MN HQ.

Would something along these lines be a good idea, do you think? If so, what else needs to be included? Would anyone be prepared to sign it?

Or is it just plain DAFT?

An ironic last post on the Graun site LOl
Wonder how this one slipped under her radar then

ho hum

Get thee to the Graun boards, Gina. Pick on someone your own size.

The point is that GF has received an apology, the offending posts have been removed, so that only leaves one other benefit to this action. Money. AC even said that baldly in her email - MN failed to offer a reasonable settlement (financial settlement to be exact).

So is that what she wants to be remembered for? For being responsible for the downfall of a much valued resource and support network for mothers of all levels of experience simply because she wasn't offered enough money not to??

Has anyone emailed her site about The Guardian? I think they should! I'd like to see her try and sue The Guardian!

Mind you I'd like to see her take on the Guardian

I can just see the next thing will be 'MN did not take down links to other sites which host defamatory content'.

Is it worth risking more trouble for Justine & Co?

Sorry ... why was the link bad? It has nothing to do with any mumsnetters AFAIK. It was the Gina Ford discussion that I pointed out a couple of weeks ago because there are rather a lot of robust comments on there - I just went back to view it just now.

As far as I recall, the issue of legal action against Mumsnet by GF has been mentioned in the Times newspaper already, so it is info that is in the public domain from other sources other than here.

Sorry if it's a bad idea but I don't understand why. It has nothing to do with MN.

I will shut the fck up now. :)

Don't think the link was a good idea mp.

The point about issuing proceedings for defamation is that you are asking the court to award you monetary compensation for the damage done to your reputation.

As far as I can see, the only damage done to GF's reputation has been as a result of this ridiculous hounding of MN. She will have to prove to the court that posts on here have caused her reputation to be damaged and her earning potential affected as a result. Can't see that it has to be honest.

This whole fiasco is causing her far more damage than the few nasty posts (thousands - I don't think so) which were removed asap.

I think it's a bit SAD if this is honestly stopping open discussion of the matter.

Can't we discuss it on another website?

OK

PARP

must go.

"some of your members have obviously no idea of the hundreds of vicious and libelous messages that have been posted over the last year."

???????????????

I don't get it. "Vicious and libelous" (sic. - really I think that the GF camp should at least find out how this is spelt at this stage) - I honestly have no idea what this refers to. Does anyone else know? Am I missing something?

I've seen quite a lot of vicious and libellous posts on other websites though - the Guardian chatboards in particular...

I think that's a good idea oliveoil

I think we should all studiously ignore threads on GF tbh

or just put parp

It probably is zippi

It just sticks in my craw though - I feel gagged. And as though we're being goaded somewhat. Think I had better stay off these threads for a while.

Jeremy Paxman's wife is called Elizabeth Ann Clough! Funny the things you learn in life.....

The best course of action might be to cease speculating.

I've been wondering that MO'H

Interesting point mo'h.

Surely if she's not a lawyer and they really are planning to take MN to court she wouldn't have the authority to make statements like she has been in case she said anything that might weaken their case?!?!?

Think the whole thing is bizarre tbh. She must have too much time on her hands.. maybe she shold take a leaf out of antheas book and learn how to fold towels properly.

That cost about £2.50 just to read your last post OO :o

Yes, although I looked on the CLB website and couldn't see her mentioned. If someone has a spare 40 quid they could join and find out.