Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

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

Original poster

<<whispers>> Was there ever any clarification about whether the issue with GF was swearing on here?

588 replies

hunkermunker · 22/05/2006 15:46

MN Towers, if you'd prefer it if this was deleted, please do so.

But I'm nosy. And I want to know. Please?

(I didn't swear in this, though I was tempted to...childish or what?!)

OP posts:
Jimjamskeepingoffvaxthreads · 25/05/2006 10:42

Ann Clough's first message said this:

"Further, as a result of Mumsnet's failure to make clear to its members that Gina Ford has no intention to take legal steps to restrain
reasonable debate, and its refusal to agree reasonable terms of settlement to resolve these serious libels of her, she was forced to conclude that she had no alternative but to issue court proceedings, which she intends to do."

From that I would surmise that she is hoping to settle, so isn't expecting to have to go to court (which I agree would be very damaging for her).

tissy · 25/05/2006 10:43

hear hear Marina

Pruni · 25/05/2006 10:43

Q for a lawyer: does reasonable terms of settlement refer to money or could it mean something else?

Jimjamskeepingoffvaxthreads · 25/05/2006 10:44

The problem is that individuals may not be able to afford to settle, or go to court. I know I wouldn't be able to. I'm sure everyone on here would want to apologise if they had caused personal upset to anyone, but I'm not sure how that could be done without making the whole thing 100 times worse.

Pruni · 25/05/2006 10:44

Never mind that MN did make it clear to us and those posts are available as a matter of public record, of course....

Jimjamskeepingoffvaxthreads · 25/05/2006 10:44

That's a good question Pruni.

Greensleeves · 25/05/2006 10:45

But surely she doesn't expect individual posters to "settle" in this way? Ordinary people don't have that sort of money. I don't really understand how she can sue individual posters on an anonymous website - aren't our details confidential?

Carmenere · 25/05/2006 10:45

My instinct is that anchovy is right (and that GF and AC ect are enjoying us getting our knickers in a twist). The reason being that if this sham ever came anywhere near a court there wouldn't be a newspaper, a website, a local rag or a Parish freesheet unnotified by members of mumsnet damning GF. She has far more than mumsnet to lose - that is after all her main objection. Bring it on GF, that's what I say Grin

Jimjamskeepingoffvaxthreads · 25/05/2006 10:47

It doesn't matter greensleeves, if someone sues you and you don't have the money you go bankrupt. It is a very real possibility for some people if this does go ahead. If you have a house you can lose it. It is very serious indeed. People have been sued for comments on websites, so I guess there are ways they can find you.

As mumsnet have posted before it is worth reading what constitutes libel and remembering you are responsible for every comment you say in public.

foundintranslation · 25/05/2006 10:49

I agree that GF does have a lot to lose, Carmenere. Individual posters and the MN team could stand to lose everything though. However, you are right that the publicity would be devastating, so hopefully that will give her pause.

Anchovy · 25/05/2006 10:50

A standard settlement is an apology (with an agreement as to prominence: newspapers ideally like to make libels on front pages and apologies down the back in small print somewhere - offended parties would like the apology as front page headlines. Where you end up depends on the bargaining position/seriousness of the libel) coupled with a payment either to the individual or to a charity of their choice.

An offer of an apology/settlement is always looked favourably upon by the courts, (unless you are a cynical repeat offender with a fairly blatant disregard for the truth).

Jimjamskeepingoffvaxthreads · 25/05/2006 10:50

\link{http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/it&law/c10_main.htm\cyberspace and the law}

Bugsy2 · 25/05/2006 10:54

I don't know Carmenere, there are an awful lot of GF devotees out there, who might think that Mumsnet was a really spiteful website if they read some of the comments made about GF personally.

I also wonder whether the team who have spent the last 6 years getting Mumsnet up & running might feel that they have an awful lot to lose.

I am very much hoping that Anchovy is right from a legal perspective & would just like to add my support to the Mumsnet team again.

batters · 25/05/2006 11:02

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Callisto · 25/05/2006 11:02

My gut feeling is that it is all just sabre rattling from GF and her legal team. I am not too worried as I don't have many assets (my computer, my H plate car) but those who could lose their house have my absolute sympathy.

fullmoonfiend · 25/05/2006 11:05

if you want to knbow how little individuals get sucked into big scary, expensive libel suits read McLibel...:(

Jimjamskeepingoffvaxthreads · 25/05/2006 11:07

Calisto- seriously you should still be careful. Even without assets you can be made bankrupt which can have a huge effect. I'd really advise being very careful when making any comments on a pulic webforum. It is very easy (because of the informal chat like nature) to go too far and end up in financial deep water.

Callisto · 25/05/2006 11:10

Thanks Jimjam, I realise that and as I have no wish to get MN into any further trouble am restraining myself. But as many others have stated, far, far worse has been posted about GF on many other forums so her taking us lot to court seems like a vendetta and as such will (hopefully) be seen as such by any court.

Jimjamskeepingoffvaxthreads · 25/05/2006 11:14

Yes agreed, althought often libel cases do not get as far as court as the defendents are advised to settle beforehand because if you go to court you risk losing everything. If you settle beforehand then you just end up hopelessly in debt, but still with a roof over your head. And of course the full story never gets heard. Of course it depends on the individual case, and the strength of the case, but libel is the one area of law where the burden of proof is on the defendent. I am very careful on the Tom Cruise threads these days!

morningpaper · 25/05/2006 11:15

(I haven't seen these spiteful personal threads - am I really naive? I thought anything negative had been removed?)

What I don't understand is that if GF is really pursuing this, why on earth she would be advised to let a website minion make vague and threatening posts announcing her intention to issue court proceedings on the very chat boards that she is allegedly suing. The whole thing is very odd indeed.

Re. a settlement - was MN asked to make a financial settlement?

Original poster
hunkermunker · 25/05/2006 11:17

I'm not sure I've said anything defamatory, but I'm v tempted to get MN to pull every post I've ever made, just in case.

I still want to know why it's only MN who are being targeted though.

OP posts:
Jimjamskeepingoffvaxthreads · 25/05/2006 11:17

No idea mp, Ann Clough's message just says "reasonable terms of settlement". I would assume that would include a financial component, but its not explicity stated.

Original poster
hunkermunker · 25/05/2006 11:18

Don't think I will though - there are too many funny ones and real gems of wisdom

Grin
OP posts:
Original poster
hunkermunker · 25/05/2006 11:18

Pearls of wisdom?

OP posts:
morningpaper · 25/05/2006 11:18

IS it only MN being targetted? I've noticed that a lot of the parenting sites have wiped their GF posts over the last few weeks. Is that just a coincidence?

How long are posts normally archives for at BMC? A lot of their GF posts have gone too as far as I can see.

Swipe left for the next trending thread