Mumsnet/GF in the Times

[pooka]

\link{http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2171122.html\here}
You need to scroll down a bit.

There are masses of Mners who have never said anything personally abusive about any writer of parenting books on here, who are still very pleased indeed that a hint of what MNHQ have been dealing with is now in the open, in the press.

Absolutely Marina. I don't think I've ever been personally abusive about the woman (although in the wake of the suing allegations I'm more tempted to be) but I'm delighted that her lawyers' threats are being exposed.

hahahahah - made my day . Well done to the Times. And they won't print it unless they can justify it as the truth - no worries there.

I actually [and regretfully] missed the entire GF furore, and only realised what was going on post the threat of legal action. I have never liked her methods though. And censorship on a public forum angers me.

Sorry alexsmum, paraghraph. And I know it didn't say the WHOLE communinty but it did insinuate it.

And I dont think the WHOLE community feels as you do about being censored as others can accept that they would not want to be called the names that Gina Ford has been called on this forum and again as stressed before no one minds her methods being disagreed with it's just that so many people go to far and start getting personal.

so we shouldn't get personal at ALL about anyone who has chosen to put themselves in the public eye? that's part and parcel w/fame, IMO. heck, i said david tennant looked like a weedy lizard about a hundred times and he hasn't sent his lawyers out.

I'm surprised that mn members aren't all dismayed that mn is in legal conversations

to be fair expatinscotland I think GF rouses such a huge disagreement across this forum that she really is brought down at every oppertunity, even when parents are looking for advice others feel that they can just come on to a thread and post insults rather than offering an alternative view to the parents question

i don't find that true at all, mummy, but then, we generally find what we seek.

i've seen a few threads on here since the furor that have been most reserved. BUT posters were giving their opinions, and stating that this was their opinion.

FWIW i think ALL mention of her whatsoever should be completely banned. just stop it altogether and the problem of legality goes away. end of.

Sorry I don't read the GF threads because I think she is full of shite - so I don't understand the lawyers thing - since when can someone sue you for having an opinion??? - And wouldn;t she have to prove her beliefs aren't full of shite to win any sort of case???

And I really hate the 'Gina Babies' type things she goes on about - she could borrow the torch after Madonna does!!!

It wasn't opinions, Twinkie, it was personal insults IIRC.

Oh - have a good thing for those - if you put 'I think' or IMO before it, then it becomes your point of view and so you can't be done alledgedly!!!!!

that isn't true though twinkie..you can't cross your fingers behind your back

What were the insults anyway that she has really bad hair or something - sorry I really would like to be enlightened but am in a mischevious mood today - am going to gym now to try and work some of energy off and then will come back and be good - well i'll try my hardest.

(Now where did I put the Gina Ford baby I have created??????!!!)

That's not true Twinkie and is not a valid get out clause.

Best just not to post on the subject to avoid aggro for MNHQ.

So are we all aboard for this round the world journey to start All Over Again? Thjos prone to travel sickness and dizziness better take some pills.

Twinkie - perhaps you should ask the individual MN-ers whose details have been sought, and then decide if you want to join the list - but perhaps seek some legal advice into how the libel, slander and defamation laws apply to the www before you go ahead? Could be expensive, otherwise.

Hi Twinkie1,
Think I'm right in saying that in the UK the onus of truth is on the defendant in a libel case - so you would have to prove that "xxx is full of shite" rather than vice versa. Also we're told that in my opinion doesn't always work as a defence...
So there you go the law is an ass I spose.

This is how Justine put it on another thread

"So if you say for example "Famous chef X's advice on nutrition is wrong and dangerous" this is defamatory - ie it could damage his reputation and to defend yourself against a libel action you would need to be able to prove that it's true. You could however say "I tried famous chef X's recipes and they were vile and left me feeling really hungry all the time." "

who is Hugo Rifkind..is he related to malcolm?

Blu - do people know if their details have been sought?

Oh, no! Hope David Tennant doesn't read what I wrote about him! :o. Sorry, David! I lied. You're SO sexy and I want all your babies.

I know a couple do.

Tortoishell - sorry - didn't mean to be alarmist....afaik, MN informed a couple of people.
tbh am just exasperated if the whole thing is branking up again!

Blu - not alarmist - is better if people know imo - rather than receiving court summons on the doorstep - agree is best to let lie!