to not want someone who is not even a mother to speak on behalf of mothers

[MollyRoger]

No thanks, Gina hun. We can speak for ourselves

Have any of you actually looked at what has been posted on her website. It reads a very different story to what is in The Times.

All they are saying on her website is that they are doing a weekly round up on politics for followers of Contented baby. Not really any different to what happens here.

Are you all saying that only certain websites should be allowed to have political views ?

I enjoy Mumsnet and I enjoy the GF website, like quite a few others on here. Why do get so uptight everytime her name is mentioned in the press, surely you are just giving her more publicity ?

I personally (i.e. not MNHQ) do not agree with GF's teachings. I read the book then promptly threw it away recycled it . I certainly would not pay £60 to access a website where I was to be told how to bring my DC's up by someone who had never had children. I even walked out of a parenting class when I asked the leader if these methods (not GF's, the parenting class leaders') had worked for her children to be told she hadn't had children and didn't ever intend to. I will happily listen to advice from people who have experienced different aspects of child-rearing, but no-one without children is going to be able to give me relavent advice on something they've not experienced OR trained in. It's why I like MN so much - there's a wealth of life experience on here, and for any given problem, there will be a multitude of different things to try, given in advice by people who have actually TRIED it. And I'm most certainly NOT middle class. In fact I am probably as far from 'middle class' as you can get, having spent over half my life on grotty deprived council estates.

"Gina doesn?t care what people say about her, but she does care about mothers who don?t have a voice,? said one friend"This is laughable, what did she do to MN????

"Ford was last night preparing to post a letter on her website to Andy Burnham, the health secretary, warning that new mothers were being left ?bewildered? by the attitude of some NHS midwives and health visitors hostile to her techniques.

?Individuals have the right to parent as they see fit, without coming up against pressure from healthcare professionals in an unofficial drive against certain methods,? she writes.

Ford says she has been concerned by reports that health professionals are discouraging mothers from following her advice. She claims one was even told to ?burn? her book"

Sounds to me like all she's interested in is advertising her book and trying to promote her 'technique' to NHS professionals who are against her advice. It has nothing to do with giving parents a voice unless it's a voice that approves of her methods.

That photo....is it of a scary pie eater?

My eyes hurt....

I never heard of her before. (maybe because I don't live in the UK?)
However, anyone can voice their opinions on anyone else on the web, she must realize this.
You can't sue someone for their opinion of you.
Just knowing she would try and sue a parenting message board because it's members posted their opinions of her, makes me wonder what sort of reasoning she has...and would I take her advice seriously?

It's not a news story. It's a PR story from Gina Ford's PR about her new blog and free advertising for her. It's just fluff. It's not worth getting upset about.

But btw, I'd never seen a photo of her before - she looks like Rikki Lake as Tracy Turnblad from the Hairspray movie (original one of course).

comments on GF's appearance are uncalled for imho brighton girl I have reported your post

I am definately not a GF fan by the way

Firstly, I have a voice, rather loud one according to DH, secondly her methods are deemed utterly horrid and the name of GF is NOT allowed to be mentioned in Rollmops' family postcode. Thirdly, she simply looks frightening, why, DH had nightmares after seeing her pic in one of her promotional articles.
So, no thank you, please go away.....

pastapesto, do try and get a life....

I do find her comments (as quoted here) very odd. She thinks parents are "bewildered" by the fact that some health professionals don't endorse her methods. Really? Does she honestly think that parents don't understand that she is the author of a book, not the undisputed world expert on babies?

Just looking at the gina website in the interests of balance, as someone earlier said that the article didn't represent what it actually says.

I am just laughing at the way she has signed off her letter to the lib dems:

Yours faithfully,

Gina Ford
Author of 'The New Contented Little Baby Book'
www.contentedbaby.com

Self publicist much? Brilliant.

Actual quote from letter to andy burnham on her website is:

"For a while I have been listening to the experiences of new mothers, and have been concerned to hear it suggested that some NHS midwives and health visitors have, on occasion, been fiercely outspoken about my baby routines, spreading misinformation about my methods, and even apparently telling one new mother to 'burn' my book. Midwives and health visitors, paid for with tax-payers money, are employed to support and guide parents, and many do a marvellous job. Yet, instead of offering an informed and impartial view, it seems that some NHS employees have, on occasion, been hostile about my book, claiming that it tells parents to leave their babies to cry for lengthy periods and to make hungry babies wait for food. The spreading of inaccurate facts serves only to bewilder new mothers."

I think if anything the abridged quote in teh article was kinder to Gina than the glorious full quote.

In fact read the whole letter it's brilliant

It starts out:

"As a supporter of the rights of parents, I would be grateful to know the Department of Health's position on the advice contained within 'The New Contented Little Baby Book'.

The majority of parents form an instinctive bond with their new baby; but that is not the same thing as having childcare knowledge, which has to be acquired over time."

She wants the DOH to comment on her little childcare manual? For civil servants to sit down and read it, analyse the contents, look at studies on different methods from around the world, form a comittee to report and digest and then produce an official government stance? On her book? WHAT?

And the bit about childcare knowledge always being better than instinct... WHAT?

Is she not aware that, on these boards at least, HCPs are all too often dead keen on Gina style routines, feeding at set times etc etc, rather than condemning them?

Please note these opinions are my own and in no way represent the views of MN...

Actually, I'm going to go against the grain here..... I used GF's methods (to a certain extent, i.e. I picked the bits that worked for us and ignored the rest). I actually found it worked - it gave me a starting point to work out a routine that suited me and DS. Ds is far happier as a result. What pissed me off was the reaction this brought from HVs, who acted as though I were some kind of monster for even considering it. I also did not appreciate being cold-shouldered out of my baby group by other parents who thought I was being 'heartless and harsh' on DS.

So I can kind of understand GF's irritation that Health Professionals are so dead set against her book (when many of them, in my experience, haven't even read it). I'm not going to comment on her ego/attitudes/ etc. for the simple reason that I've never met her, but I can't really understand why she's so demonised amongst parenting authors. The simple fact is that her methods have worked, for me and for several other people I know - none of us ever left our babies to cry, none of us did anything other parents might regard as 'cruel'. Of course it doesn't work for everyone, but what parenting method does? So why shouldn't she be annoyed that her book sales are being affected by people having a go?? I'd be annoyed in her shoes.

Can we also start a petition to stop mothers commenting on things which have nothing to do with their own children/raising children as though being a mother gives their opinion a new dimension and more value on the subject?
"well as a mother I think the decision to pedestrianise Norwich city centre is awful/ as a mother the war in Afghanistan is just wrong"

Agree with ronald. I saw the nick clegg article and rather hoped for hus sake he had deep pockets. She appears (allegedly to me just my opinion not being libelous) to not be able to tolerate anyone disagreeing with her.

Kerrrrrist on a bike, routine is NOT, GFs invention, it's something that babies develop themselves,given time, love and care. All human life revolves around routines, we eat breakfast, lunch and dinner and sleep at night for starters.
rrghhhhhhhhh....

IamSoNotTelling - So what is wrong with her using her name to promote herself. Lets face it Mumsnet uses her name the whole time to get publicty. They couldn't even publish a book without mentioning the legal action in the forward. Not quite sure how Mumsnet books sales are doing,but as The Mirror pointed out Mumsnet now have 25 people working for them in their new flash offices. So they haven't done so badly out of using the Gina Ford name either.

As someone you has used her methods I actually welcome her letter to Andy Burnham. Why should people who followed her methods be bullied and ridiculed ?

I see new young mums coming on this site asking for help from those members using the GF book and they get shot down within minutes of posting. If you don't like GF or her methods fine, but why can't you just ignore her.

Well thats a first for me - reported on this thread..not sure whether I should feel pride or shame really.

Come on though, I vet my photos as I can look seriously scary - surely she had a better one than that?

haven't ever read her book and didn't know she had no children...but was struck when i saw her picture,by the incredible likeness between her..and matt lucas in a wig!

priyag you misunderstand the nature of things.

I don't ridicule anyone who follows Gina Ford, different methods work for different people, and if a parent finds something that is good for them and their children then that is great.

What I find amusing is the sheer ego of the woman. She wants the DOH to launch a full investigation into her book? And have a specific stance on her approach? Do me a favour.

She is upset that some HCPs are derogatory about routines to mothers? But HCPs are also derogatory about BF on demand, longer term BF, co-sleeping etc etc. Many HCPs are all to eager to offer their views on many things that parents do, for no apparent reason.

You see if Gina really cared about parents, she would have written a letter saying ""In an opening salvo, Ford was last night preparing to post a letter on her website to Andy Burnham, the health secretary, warning that new mothers were being left ?bewildered? by the attitude of some NHS midwives and health visitors"" because that is true. Tacking the bit on the end to make it all about her was where it went wrong.

How can she claim to speak for all parents when she is in fact only speaking for parents who agree with her methods? It's nonsense.

If she wants to court publicity to raise her book sales, and as a response to what nick clegg, then that's fine. But such an unashamed self publicist with an ego that size is going to get the piss taken out of them.

She really wants a governement department to develop official policy regarding a paretning book? One book out of scores available on the market? Can;t you see that is mad?