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

And I'm sure this can't be the only site with this problem so why pick on it alone?

I think it's all got blown out of proportion. Of those people who can remember, how many (a) believe the comments to be true or (b) have let the comments chnge their perspective of the person?

None of which actually makes a blind bit of difference, obviously. I wonder why it all got this far?

I'm pretty sure that's the one where we had the previous discussion of banning, JT, and I can't find that so my guess is it's gone.

has the thread with AnnClough's post been deleted? I can't find it

Funnily enough Soupy there's only one post in this whole saga that really sticks in my mind, and it was one addressed to Evita...

tinker i was thinking just the same

It's all rather odd. How many people actually know or can remember what was said? (rhetorical question!) I certainly can't - never saw the original discussions and have no idea what was said other than it was personal (and therefore wrong). All this does is drag it all back up again - what does "anyone" actually hope to gain from it?? The comments are gone - more thoroughly than if they had been printed in, say, a newspaper which you can't get back. Bizarre.

Yes, I thought that Pollyanna. I think MN are very well-connected, media-wise, and I think it would be sensible if this were left up to them.

but actually would it help if the press were contacted? I'm not an expert, but probably it would not be in MN's interests if this were made more public than it is - it would be easier for GF to argue that her reputation is damaged if this is in the papers rather than just 20 deleted threads which haven't even been seen by most mumsnetters.

I think there are a lot more members of MN than the few who have posted so far who would welcome a total ban. Every time a post is deleted, could there be a curt stock sentence saying why, rather than simply 'message deleted'?

So, essentially, the bottom line is that she wants money because her feelings have been hurt . How petty and money-grubbing.

Although this is no surprise when you realise that she charges £40pa for membership of her website, on top of all the money she makes from her books. And threatening to bring down a website which brings valuable support to thousands of mums of all levels of experience is peripheral to that.

Please note that I am referring to her actions, not to her personality.

Well I couldn't agree more, but when we suggested it Justine said she thought it was a silly idea. I've said on the other thread, unless they agree to the extent of putting a warning it's going to be really hard to enforce with new people joining. I've tried to find the thread where we discussed it but it seems to have gone.

Could she complain if she wasn't allowed to be discussed?

Justine I presume that you have got some legal advice about all of this? I personally think her claims are preposterous (I am a solicitor, but not a libel one), but I know libel claims can be so damaging and expensive. My dh is a solicitor although not libel either, but I'm sure he knows someone who can take a quick look at this for you if you need.

OH MY GOD. I can not beleive this. I don't know what to say.

Don't know how I feel about a total ban though, someone explain the logic please.

ahh, I thought this was more information to them.

I will, naturaly go with whatever MN Towers decides.

Personaly I feel that a blanket ban is the way to go.

She cannot complain if she is not discussed, simple as that.

I'm shocked & appalled. Damages? [shocked]

I don't know what to type .

Yes I've raed it, but I don't think the situation hasn't changed dramatically since the last discussion, just that they've gone public with the details.

tamum, have you read Justines update?

in light of that I feel that the site will be laying itself open to popential litigation if she is discussed.

This isn't a spiteful, throwing the toys out of the cot gesture, but and pragmatic response to the legal situation.

I'm sure this will satisfy her needs and wishes

It's so ironic that when a total ban was discussed before that it was Justine et al who said no, mothers (who used her) need to be able to discuss her methods. MN supported promoting GF

I would also strongly support a total ban, but Justine was against this when we suggested it before, and obviously it has to be up to MN Towers.

I am so, so angry about this I can't tell you. I would love to say what I think, but of course I can't.

OMG!
I am stupendously amazed that it has come to this
Mumsnet is about mumsnetters and about Carrie Justine and Rachel whose baby this is.
Who worked hard to bring us this website which has given so much to so many.
Seriously CJR Inc what if anything can we do?
I mean this in a PRACTICAL manner bearing in mind ourselves,spouses and siblings who might be suitably qualified to assist in a professional manner so to speak perhaps?(aside from the obvious)

snafu

good point harpsi