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

Joining all those who are [shocked] at this and second SP's suggestion of a fighting fund. Wish I was a lawyer.

Yep, I think a blanket ban would probably be the most workable solution. A shame then that all other parenting gurus would get more publicity without comparison as a result, but that's the consequences of throwing your weight around, imo.

Yes, franke, but she can't claim not mentioning her at all is defamatory or libellous, b/c you have to say or write something for that to be true.

Well I'd say there isn't much of a case against MN but GF seems to think there is, so by the same token I'm sure she'd find a blanket ban hurts her feelings or whatever too.

What would the court costs be in a case like this?

Perhaps if this went public, some well-meaning lawyer could offer their services for free? I think it should go public personally, she's stated her intention to go to court regardless, keeping it away from the public arena won't change that, and right now we might need the public's help.

'As I said I'm clutching at straws if MN aren't 'allowed' to introduce a formal ban. '

Yeah, I'd say.

And MN is perfectly free to introduce a ban on all mention of her. There's nothing illegal in that.

my monies on you kiddo! [scared emoticon]

You can deride the methods without deriding the woman though, Caligula.

Can we start a fighting fund?

oh sorry wrong thread

But you don't respond expat, you just write the one phrase and then leave it. And then a few other people write exactly the same phrase and nothing else. It kills the discussion or makes a very dull thread. As I said I'm clutching at straws if MN aren't 'allowed' to introduce a formal ban.

She's fired me up more than Gordon Brown, JT :o.

Wotchit Enid, the word unstylish is derogatory.

methinks expat is willing to don some boxing gloves

so she needs the cash

how deeply unstylish of her

IMO, a ban's the only way to go.

just shocked and appalled for MN Towers.

'I see your point Tamum but there must be a way of just introducing a stock phrase into a thread which becomes part of MN parlance. Even just "I don't agree with GF methods" and leave it at that'

But then how to respond to the poster who then asks, 'What don't you agree with?'

'I can't answer that b/c if GF finds it even derogatory, nothing to do w/defamatory, I could be personally sued.'

Cue poster then remarking, 'Really?

And the entire thing kicks off again, w/GFs lawyers waiting to pounce.

Not worth it.

NOPE

at this latest development. Groundhog day.

Have not read it all since hte latest announcement, but I do like Carmener's suggestion in her second sentence in her post of 10.45.

Have spoken to dh (no expert) who reckons as MN have refused (I think) to give details of individual members registration, it's quite hard to trace exact details, ie, real name and address, of individual posters.

Still happy to contribute to a fighting fund, especially to any individual members who may may become involved.

We will fight them on the beaches, etc

Yes franke, there just has to be a way round it. If MN is still here of course

I see your point Tamum but there must be a way of just introducing a stock phrase into a thread which becomes part of MN parlance. Even just "I don't agree with GF methods" and leave it at that. I don't know, I'm clutching at straws. I'm just appalled by this daft situation.

I have come ridiculously late to this thread and it's making my brain hurt.

And I'm cross.

what she can't stop us doing is spreading the word in RL

I guess the real problem with a self-imposed ban is that people who used her methods and liked them would be less likely to go along with a ban, so there might be positive posts going completely unopposed. It's not going to be trivial I don't think.

I cannot believe that anyone anywhere, can seriously believe that demanding that anything "derogatory" to them be deleted, is reasonable. Being derogatory is not the same as being libellous. What is the definition of derogatory? Would a law court find this demand entirely sane and reasonable?

I can't see how you can possibly comply with this except by banning all mention of her, because it is impossible to honestly discuss her methods without being derogatory of them if you don't agree with them, surely? And if you allow anything to stand which echoes anything Penelope Leach has said about GF, she'll hold you to hostage on an ongoing basis, with all the stress and hassle that that involves. How can that possibly be resolved?