Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

MNHQ

Update on the Gina Ford legal situation

732 replies

JustineMumsnet · 25/02/2007 19:58

Hello all,
Some of you may have seen a Gina Ford interview in the Mail on Sunday today, in which she refers to the Mumsnet legal situation, so we thought it was only right to update you as to where we are.

We are due to go to mediation on March 7th. Our position with regard to this hasn't changed - since very early on in the dispute we have suggested mediation as a sensible way forward and so we are pleased to be meeting with Ms Ford and her lawyers on March 7th.

In the meantime GF has issued a claim form, which means that the court clock is now running and we have to put in our defence within 28 days.

Obviously, as Ms Ford has made clear by this action and by her statements in the Mail on Sunday if mediation fails, she intends to sue.

We're sorry that we are still having to ask you not to discuss Gina Ford or her methods but given the potential for something that may be used against Mumsnet to slip through, this probably remains the safest course of action.

We will, of course, keep you fully updated.

Thanks for all your support.
Mumsnet HQ

OP posts:
Carmenere · 27/02/2007 18:36

Great piece in the Standard. Justine your kids are beautiful and look really happy

NurseyJo · 27/02/2007 17:54

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

morningpaper · 27/02/2007 17:52

I found it - had to pay a quid Good article

fortyplus · 27/02/2007 17:41

Can you give us any highlights?

Ready · 27/02/2007 17:41

I posted a comment, Monday morning, and it still hasn't appeared. Wasn't rude or defamatory. Just questioning some of her comments in the Mail article.

Does seem a bit odd.

hunkerdave · 27/02/2007 17:41

Kathryn raises a very interesting point in the Daily Mail comments...

aDad · 27/02/2007 17:39

morning edition centre-ish double-page spread

morningpaper · 27/02/2007 17:36

Where exactly is the Standard article? What edition and what pages / supplement?

fortyplus · 27/02/2007 17:19

NurseyJo - oops! sorry...

SlightlyMadScientist · 27/02/2007 17:11

I was thinking exactly the same as Kathryn from Sheffield about the FREE advice and how it impacts on other websites that might have also been mentioned in the article...

NurseyJo · 27/02/2007 17:08

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

boredwithwaitingforminiMOSSY · 27/02/2007 17:06

Someone in London could scan it on to a web page somewhere?

fortyplus · 27/02/2007 17:05

NurseyJo - Here you are...

Ottermerecat · 27/02/2007 17:05

MOSSY.... the website doesn't appear to display any of the feature articles only news ones (www.thisislondon.co.uk/news.) Would anyone else know how to reproduce the article - or maybe MN Towers can help. Anyone?

Freckle · 27/02/2007 17:03

I sent a second one, more moderate than the first, but that hasn't appeared either.

NurseyJo · 27/02/2007 17:03

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

lulumama · 27/02/2007 17:02

"It would be interesting to do a role call, to see who else has not been able to express their view on the DM comment section. "

me , for one ! i bet there are a lot more !

Dior · 27/02/2007 17:01

Message withdrawn

NurseyJo · 27/02/2007 17:00

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

boredwithwaitingforminiMOSSY · 27/02/2007 16:58

Ottermerecat I couldn't find it on the Evening Standard web site, do they normally run the same stories in the paper as on the web?

Judy1234 · 27/02/2007 16:51

Generally if both parties to a mediation want to resolve things it is best if both of them don't go anywhere near the newspapers and approach the mediation with some desire to compromise even if they know they're in the right. What you want to avoid is a hardening of attitudes and positions and for both sides to see how weak their case is and how wise it is to just be done with it and do a deal.

fortyplus · 27/02/2007 16:44

Xenia's post... ' I think they should be treated like internet service providers, hosters, AOL etc and not liable for content you don't check in advance and NOT treated as a publisher who checks things out first.'

WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE

Ottermerecat · 27/02/2007 16:42

Quick Quick! Justine's been interviewed by the Evening Standard (today, pages 18, 19). The article isn't available on their website, so sorry to out of Londoners, but it puts her side of the story across very well. Funny though, the Evening Standard is the sister paper of the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday!!

bobsi · 27/02/2007 15:17

Mumsnet has also saved my sanity many times and I'd be lost without it. I suppose I just want to make the point that sometimes I see posts that I think are nasty and I think it's a shame that people have to be that way. I suppose I should just log off though!!

PeachyClair · 27/02/2007 15:09

Bobsi- I kina see your point in that I'd never have made that comment either, however this is a community and communities can't exopect to be all the same- the very nature of this board means that MN can't police very post or it couldn't exist, I don't think they should be penalised for that. MN have saved my sanity many tiomes. First when DS1 was DX with AS, and now DS3 is being dx's with ASD. Its my main source of information, and my main place to run to (outside of DH) as we live away from family.

Swipe left for the next trending thread