to draw your attention to MN'ers being threatened with court for posting

[gordyslovesheep]

By Samaritan's Purse

I know I'm not the only one

who else have they decided to silence?

It's quite interesting that they dislike criticism so much

In my opinion, couldn't any company/business/entity on Mumsnet make these same threats whenever threads get started discussing them? Not everyone looks on something completely favourably. Otherwise all reviews on all products would be 5 stars. And if a charity takes a certain stance, then surely it is inviting people to share opinions on that stance. IMO IMO IMO.

Unfortunately, everything I said was backed up, mostly with links to Samaritan's Purse's own website. They are very good at showing themselves up.

'Tis because they are Right. Of course. Allegedly.
In fact they have Divine Right on their side. Apparently.

Yy, what would Jesus think of this, eh??

I'd like to see MN take a stance too.

I'd like to see Brian come in for a webchat and we can discuss this like grownups.

I've just come back from a few days away to an e-mail as well. I'm just about to have a flick through this thread.

if he has no right to reply, then what was he doing on here with all his posts?

This is a public forum - anybody can reply, surely

Bri Bri, foul you cry!
But you did reply.
Now defamation you cry?
You numpty*.

(last line needs work perhaps)

• just my opinion.

Yeah, and I repeated cry like totally on purpose there.

Like exexpat I have tended to quote their own statements - hence no email. They have made their position on various topics really quite clear.

"often these people are humanists who seemingly want to force their particular religion on schools" Ah Brian is good value isn't he. Been going through the old thread (and dredging it all up - wonder if SP realises the impact of their threats)

I actually feel a bit sorry for him. That whole thread didn't really go the way he had planned - an advert for Sp and to win people round. I did worry at the time that his bosses might not be too happy with him.

I am shocked by this thread/turn of events.

Our church stopped supporting OCC several years ago, we now support the food bank and the salvation army christmas toy appeal through the local paper.

WWJD indeed and

In my opinion, Jesus would be horrified.

I've just mooching around their website and came across this:

"In 1975, he accompanied Bob on a life-changing tour of some of the world's neediest mission fields. Franklin saw the poverty of pagan religions and the utter despair of the people they enslave. God had captured his heart for missions."

[gobsmacked]

www.samaritanspurse.org/our-ministry/history/

phantom - that's really interesting. May I be really nosy and ask if that was a local decision or a national one?

NB I have no reason for asking that other that wondering how many people, organisations are turning off SP. My sister's children's school (RC) decided for the 1st time this year, after many years, to not support SP, and that was a diocese - wide agreement.

I thought Brian was Very Good Value last year.

I love a good laugh.

In future, when SP is discussed, presumably it will be fine to link to this thread, which exists and we are, I assume, allowed to say that SP threatens legal action when criticised... I think that would convince a lot of people not to donate to them. A lot more than saying they allegedly do x, y and z.

I'm pretty horrified by a charity behaving in this way.

Well the ECHR doesn't give an unqualified right to freedom of speech, but discussing comments that an organisation has put into the public domain themselves, presumably for the purpose of attracting attention, wouldn't at first sight appear to be a legal wrong per se. Is there a reason that the organisation in question might be unfamiliar with the ECHR?

The law of libel is also not intended to be used to circumvent the difficulty in claiming for pure economic loss for some perceived loss of business by an organisation.

Which is why it becomes pertinent whether the threats of legal action are threatening injunctions or the claiming of damages, or if they are indeed empty postulating. There would be a stage when such action might become vexatious and if it is indeed a charity involved, they will have to satisfy the requirements of the Charities Commission as to their actions.

I'm reminded of this daily mail link

Step 1. Ruin Jesus.
Step 2. Sue
Step 3. Profit????