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

Does Evita still post here, or did the furor cause her to leave? Presume she's at least changed her name if she's still around?

It seems to me that GF's strenuous (some would say aggressive/litigious) efforts to "protect her reputation" have given this debate a life of it's own, instead of allowing it to fade into oblivion.

but it was made very clear - I remember Justine spelling it out for us - even the way in which we could discuss her methods without being defamatory. Has anyone contacted the Times yet? And I really think Ann Clough's two explanations [the swearing thing and this latest one] are worthy of a Private Eye lampooning.

I think when Ann Clough refers to "Mumsnet's failure to make clear to its members that Gina Ford has no intention to take legal steps to restrain reasonable debate....." she means that MN didn't make clear that the threatened action was about personal attacks/offensive comments about her, rather than reasonable debate of her methods. It's all a load of hogwash IMHO. But I think that's what Ann Clough means - that the distinction between personal attacks on GF and debate of her methods wasn't made clear.

solicitor people .. under what circumstances would MN not have to pay costs then?

It seems totally unfair that someone can bring a case against another party and lose but the other party is still penalised financially

The whole thing is utterly bizarre and extremely worrying for MN Towers. None of it makes any sense at all - what kind of legal advice is GF getting? Sounds very odd to me.

Also, if it's nothing to do with the swearing then what was that earlier email from Anne Clough all about?
I don't think GF is being very clear about what she wants MN Towers to do. MN Towers, on the other hand, seem to be doing their very best to behave properly here.

I can't see that she has a case to answer but what Jimjams says about MN potentially being in trouble even if they win is very worrying.

oh 2happy- you got there before me. Glad I'm not the only one struggling with the logic!

We have been told that this is about:

1. GF wanting to make it clear that she is not officially associated with Mumsnet because people will be confused when they look Gina Ford up in search engines and find her name here.
2. GF not wanting to be associated with Mumsnet because we swear a lot.
3. GF objecting to "libellous personal attacks."

It's v. confusing.

"questioned her experience of working with mothers and babies"

I don't think anyone has done this. We all know she has worked with over 300 babies and mothers, which is great.

I also don't understand how Mumsnet has failed "to resolve these serious libels of her" as we have been told to ensure that we discuss her childcare method failings only (and not her personal failings, uh should there be any which I'm sure there aren't of course :)) and any posts which might be construed as inappropriate have been swiftly deleted and a new tool has been put in place to ensure that any possibly negative posts of any kind are instantly brought to the attention of Mumsnet Towers.

So it's all v. confusing innit.

Ah but Twiglett, you're allowed to comment on what's in the book. GF has graciously given permission to have her methods debated, even by mothers.

Hang on so according to the lovely Ann

......, 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....."

"Gina will take all necessary steps to restore her reputation and that of her hundreds of thousands of followers, including the issue of High Court proceedings as soon as practicable."

I completely fail top understand the logic of this. So because mumsnet failed to say that Gina was not going to sue, she is going to sue.

The difference is "reasonable" debate right, but mumsnet deleted all unreasonable comments as soon as possible. What more could they do? I know who I think is being unreasonable.

This is quite serious though, the costs of going to high court can equal losing house and home costs, even if you win.

Which Hollywood star was it who did that? Claudia Schiffer??? I think it was her, but apologies if it was someone else. Her cook put out a cookery book based on recipes that Claudia liked, with little snippets of Claudia information- nice stuff, nothing nasty. So Claudia sued (for what I'm not sure?? breach of contract perhaps) and the cook lost everything, home etc. I remember India Knight wrote a piece asking what exactly the point of it all was.

Anyway ramble not to compare GF with Claudis Schiffer but just to point out that Hollywood stars in a huff can cause someone to lose their home, and I'm guessing that the seriousness of going to the high court is in the same league. I'm worried about Justine and Carrie, this is serious stuff.

[email protected] for Hugo Rifkind

hands up then who questioned the 'authenticity of her books'

as far as I can see they are actually really and truly books .. they appear to have pages and a cover .. yup a book by all definition

I am avoiding commenting on any of the advice between laid out between the pages you will notice

I'm inclined to think that it's best to say little if anything

Feel so sorry for the Mumsnet team having to deal with this. Having been a poster for 5 years and seen so many interesting debates about so many parenting techniques, I am amazed and disappointed that Gina Ford feels it necessary to do this.
If there is anything I can do to help - I will.

As court proceedings have not yet been issued, I suppose anyone can say anything they like about it all. Especially someone like Hugo Rifkind in the Times - as he is already interested in the hob-nail boot approach of GF to perceived criticism. Anyone got his email address??

Didn't that man from Coronation Street sue once because someone called him boring....and it went to court and he lost.....because he was boring.

I just feel bad that MN Towers are having to deal with all this stress, are they not supposed to be 'relaxing' on maternity leave ?

Bring back the subs if the coffers get low with fighting this Justine.

xx

The problem with taking action for libel is that you potentially set yourself up for a prat-fall. You don't like what someone has said about you and you feel that your reputation has suffered as a result (which in this case is debatable), so what do you do? You launch a court case where everything that was said about you and which you didn't like is raked over again and again in the full glare of the media. Terribly sensible action......

And you run the risk that people will agree with what was said, that your reputation did not suffer and now millions of people can see that.

I certainly am not restrained in my opinion of her in RL, hunker, although I have shown remarkable restraint in writing here.

But yeah, anyone w/a modicum of business sense realises how devestating bad word of mouth can be.

I thought that if court proceedings were going to happen then public discussion of all matters pertaining to the case was completely not allowed

??

I presume as Ann Clough has no public persona or reputation to uphold, we can say what we like about her?