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

Don't know what the original post was, there's no record of it.

It might have been something along the lines of Gina Ford books being banned by the NSPCC, which has been a popular myth (OBVIOUSLY) that has been posted on various sites over the past few years.

However, there are lots of posts on the Guardian website which just say things like "GF is a " which you would think are more libellous. I'm surprised they have not been touched.

I have to agree with Bloss - any further comment about GF on here is surely just pouring oil on the flames?

I think it has been cached Jan. I too am mightily intrigued that the NSPCC was discussed in this context...

Twiglett, morningpaper et al - Do you really think that you are helping matters by pursuing these posts? If you genuinely think that you are improving the world with your posts, then who am I to object? But it seems to me that your posts are only going to make things worse - for reasons I expressed earlier. Surely abstaining - even if you are completely in the right - is justified here?

mp, the fact that your Natural Parenting quote was from 2 years ago makes it more significant IMHO, not less - the lady has obviously been making a habit of this and the "personal attacks" on MN something of a red herring?

My italics. Wonder if the NP site still has the post in question?

Carmenere, I don't think MN is the only parenting site dealing with this at the mo, but thanks to Justine, Carrie & co and a really loyal and growing membership over the years, this site is perhaps the best known and it is certainly very busy. J & C have regular radio slots and sometimes go on TV, They have made a television series. Mumsnet has clout.
I too am really sorry that individuals' feelings have been hurt in this, but IMO in complying with points 1-4 MNHQ have covered that side of things.

and from a marketing perspective if you use your name as a brand to promote your opinions and advice, from which you then make money, it is patently clear that the general public will see the 'name' as a brand as that is what you are aiming for.

I think then it is understandable that those who disagree with the advice will not talk about the advice as belonging to the book but belonging to the author

however I still agree with Moomin .. I am sorry the actual person behind the 'Gina Ford' brand has been hurt or insulted.

Obvioulsy she has formal training in hotels and catering

not babies

Twiglett she doesn't have any formal training, no

Does nobody else feel that the reason mumsnet is being singled out is because they are in direct competition with the GF machine? I mean I found my way here via the best parenting book I read when I was pregnant (and I read them all). Mumsnet has parenting book and a free forum, GF has parenting books and a pay forum. The guardian doesn't.

Jimjams, I honestly don't know much about it, I was just reading some stuff from another law firm about the recent rash of internet libel cases and it was mentioned in there as a good idea for anyone who had a blog etc.

personally I'd like to know what " After studying Hotels and Catering in Edinburgh, she had an opportunity to become a maternity nurse and discovered her flair with babies" from her biog on her site means

is a maternity nurse a medical qualification? was there any training involved. The use of the word 'nurse' would imply so and I'd love that to be clarified because the way it is phrased it sounds like she just started looking after babies and decided she was good at it

yes that is an interesting quote from mp.

Dino- genuine question again- is the reason that so many libel cases settle before court, because people have libel insurance (I had no idea such a thing existed - how on earth does it work).

Great idea, Jools. That'll really help Carrie et al.

maybe we should flood her 'in' box with links to offending threads from around the globe and ask what she's going to do about those!

Yes, morningpaper, extremely interesting, however old, and it rather goes against the idea of a particular attachment to MN having caused extra hurt. I think it's absolutely right that personal attacks should be stopped, and indeed should never have happened, but the damages claim against MN is indefensible, and the curb on any form of criticism which is likely to result is appalling.

I'm not convinced that hurt feelings come into it tbh. Rather that it's an attempt for forestall any negative reviews of the latest book, therefore potentially damaging her reputation and affecting sales.

Like some other posters I feel a bit torn as well. I acutally rang GF when I had ds1 all those years ago as had immense feeding probs. If I had known about MN, may not have needed it.

However, am puzzled and saddened at her choice, though like Bloss can see how she might feel hurt and cornered a wee bit, but her actions do seem strange in the context of free speech.

And my posts crossing too! Still interesting by implication though...

Excuse me...Morningpaper's quote not Jimjams!

Agree utterly with blu, bloss and jimjams. That was an extremely interesting quote there JJ.

Bloss and Jimjams - good posts.
Bloss - I have found myself on different sides of the discussion from you over many things, including the approach of TCLBB - but here, I agree. Lets keep our counsel, wait patiently, and take our lead from MNHQ when we can do anything to help in any way.

If mumsnet doesn't already have it, I think that investing in some libel insurance might be a good idea...

Too late for hte current spat though obviously.

The idea of damages is utterly outrageous.

Anyone fancy an attempt at quantifying the 'damage' done to GFs reputation against an actual cost of all the free advertising that has been gained by all hundreds of positive posts about the CLBB method on Mumsnet?

In real terms it could actually end up with GF owing Mumsnet money.

And if this kind of legal action is potentially happening to other sites, then it is a PR disaster of monumental proportions and a very, very foolish action which will backfire spectacularly, frankly.

Crossed posts with lots of other info. Jeez, I'm a slow writer ...