To applaud Justine MN

[cerseissword]

for her put down to LJ printed in today's DM www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2587124/LIZ-JONES-If-trolls-joy-I-wake-scared-day.html

I don't know the history, if the Woman in the article has been nasty about Justine and hurting her feelings, then she has cheek to ask for compensation for her hurt feelings.

Yabu - ( and a bit arse licky )

Hahaha. Liz doesn't really like it when people bite back does she?

I don't think she's very concerned about the distress she causes when she writes about people in her column in a national newspaper. I'm really not that concerned if she gets upset by comments on here.

Justine's comments were amusing and good put down. Good.

It reminded me of the comments made by mnhq on twitter to Katie Hopkins.

Just to point out (as I've read what she wrote), a member of MN wrote a post saying that she had seen LJ out socially taking cocaine.

Now yes, that post was taken down. But it wasn't quite the same as just being a bit nasty, was it?

Well done Justine

LJ used to be, long ago, a columnist. Now she is just a troll, and paid handsomely for it.

I think people say sorry it's s DM link anticipating the many people who choose boycott it. I think it's a nice gesture.

I think you might want to ask for that to be deleted Nanny

To be honest loads of people take drugs (or have done) and I'm not sure that out of LJ's many alleged 'sins' that that actually counts as one.

Now writing about Michael the dog being involved in sheep worrying, that is different. She wrote about him coming home with blood on his muzzle, about him escaping into fields of sheep and about finding a lamb with its guts hanging out in a stream after her dog had run off worrying. It could be that Michael the sheepdog had run all the way to a branch of Hawksmoor for a rare steak but I somehow doubt that. The column in question is googlable. I now have Tea & Kittens so I cannot access any Daily Fail articles hence the lack of a link on this post.

Kudzu

Why? LJ talks all about it in the article. If it was libellous and she could prove it it would have been through court by now.

Read the other thread on this. Justines provided copied of the exchange between them in full.

It's more interesting when not edited by LJ in her own favour.

I love Justine's reply.

By the way, the cocaine allegations have not proven to be wrong, just to be impossible to prove without any evidence.

As for LJ's comments about trolls being demeaning to women - oh, please. LJ's life is demeaning to most women!

and here it is

Think in the spirit of clarity best to post up the email exchange I had with Liz Jones yesterday:

On 21 March 2014 14:57, Elizabeth Jones wrote:
Hi Justine, thanks for getting back to me.

As you know, a woman called xxxxxxx [redacted] posted anonymously on Mumsnet that she saw me taking cocaine at a party. This has caused me a great deal of stress, obviously. If a newspaper published that you were seen taking cocaine, you could quite rightly take us to court.
I understand the accusation was withdrawn (by her, I hasten to add, not by your site), but many people read it and circulated it and are still talking about it.
What is your policy regarding posts on your site that libel other figures? I assume you have her email address, did you contact her? Is she now barred from your site?
I would imagine you would like to settle with me out of court for my distress. I will be reproducing any quote you give me via email in my column on Sunday

Many thanks

Liz Jones

On 21 March 2014 16:16, Justine Roberts wrote:
Hi Liz,

You've not got things quite right in your mail. The accusation that you took cocaine at a party wasn’t ever withdrawn by the person who posted it on Mumsnet. However, we did delete the thread as soon as we saw it because we didn't think it was fair to leave it up on the site, obviously not knowing the truth of the matter. We also deleted a second discussion which referenced the first, again, as soon as it was brought to our attention. This was four or five weeks ago.

We naturally looked into the posting history of the person who made the original allegation about cocaine. It turns out to have been made by a long-standing member of the site who'd posted many times previously and never before posted controversially, never been reported or indeed broken any of our posting guidelines.

With regard to our policy regarding potentially libellous posts. First, we encourage our users not to break the law by posting libellous comments in our T&Cs. Second, as in your case, we do tend to remove things we think are unfair. Thirdly we follow the steps laid out in section 5 of the Defamation Act for websites, so if you'd like to submit a notice of complaint we can take it from there.

I'm afraid you imagined wrong if you thought I'd like to pay you money for your distress, any more than I imagine you'd like to settle up with me for the distress your column causes me most weeks. I am sorry you've been upset, though.

Oh and I'm very happy to be quoted and trust you'll reproduce my quote in full?

Best regards,

Justine

Honey I didn't realise LJ had discussed using C in her articles. Apols for getting that wrong.

If LJ hadn't written about her boyfriend he wouldn't have had emails sent to him about a perceived lack of hygiene.
If she hadn't written about a horse dying while she was looking after it then perhaps she wouldn't have been accused of injuring horses [the owner read about this in the Diary, not having been told by Liz]
write about yourself by all means but leave others out of it.

I dont read the daily fail and have no idea who this person is.
Just checking my understanding-
Someone posted something they claim to have seen about her on mumsnet that she states is untrue.
Mumsnet delete the thread.
She then asks for compensation.
Mumsnet says no.
She then writes an article saying she has been to court in the past because people have written things she doesnt like, and she lost the cases presumably meaning they were found to be true.
She is not planning on taking this person to court.
I didnt see the original thread so she has done a good job of raising the profile.
If mumsnet is going to pay out shedloads of dosh for what its community posts then please can someone write something about me grin
Just checking I had got this right.

Having tried to read the Defamation Act!
Liz may not have a claim against mumsnet. But may have a claim against the poster who wrote the post, providing Liz can find the poster?

She apparently knows the poster IRL

LittleDrummerGirl shoplifted Ginsters pasties from Morrisons and ate the in Harvey Nichols changing rooms.

I saw her do it!

Has the poster left MN?

I had read the email exchange on the other thread already but thanks for posting that. As far as I am aware the onus is on the accuser to prove an accusation as opposed to LJ having to prove innocence.

So unless LJ has alluded to using illegal drugs in her columns or in tape then it is probably best not to repeat such allegations - especially as Mn set a precedent by deleting such accusations in the first place.

Littledrummer, no you have one bit wrong - LJ has been taken to court herself 3 times because she has written something wrong about those people, and lost the cases.

The comments under her article make for bitter reading...

Honeydragon shoplifted honey from Asda and ate it in Harrods toilets

I don't think there's anything wrong in what NannyOgg has posted - it's much the same as what LJ has written herself in her article

LJ factory farms unicorns.

Khloe erm it's not libel if it's true

Thumb, Kudzu, didn't realise LJ had written about it already and was looking out for NannyOgg