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

[hunkermunker]

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?!)

morningpaper, everything has now been removed, but presumably GF's lawyers or even GF herself have copies of the old threads containing the remarks made about GF personally - otherwise they would have no evidence to made a libel case.

I don't understand why there is a case against MN then - surely by pulling the posts it has done everything it can? You can't take pre-emptive action on an internet talk forum unless you are going to make ALL un-moderated chat illegal!

They want a public apology from Mumsnet.

Apologies, I certainly diddn't mean to trivialise the worry that has been caused by GF to my fellow mumsnetters. I just think that it's unlikely to go to court because the fallout will be too harmful to her reputation. I'm not too concerned about her followers either as they will be too busy looking at their watches to be able to rally any support.

Really Rhubarb? But why, what have mumsnet done?

They have hinted at a big statement to come soon. So, tell us what they want, and get on with it. We should all stop speculating, because lengthy chats on the issue give some posters the opportunity to write something inadvisable, which might add fuel to GF's fire.

Personally I'm sick of the whole debacle. I hope it all dies a death.

They allowed the inflammatory posts I suppose. The way they see it, certain posters posted some inflammatory and vitrolic comments about GF, unfortunately these were seen by them before they were deleted. In their eyes, MN didn't delete fast enough. They want a public apology for this.

If it were that simple, why not just apologise?

Well I suppose that's better than losing their lively hood and ruining this incredibly valuable website. But does this mean that for the rest of eternity AC is going to be monitoring mumsnet for libelous comments and one of the team here is going to have to do the same - how long is too long exactly too? This is crazy!

It seems really unfair that MN are being hounded, when so many other sites have threads that say similar or worse things than those that have ever been posted on here. Is it because she used to post on here to help people and feels let down? I feel really sad for her that she couldn't just deal with the dituation in a different way. Why is it all taking so long too?

Carmemere - Is a 'lively hood' something that won't stay on your head in the rain?

There has not been a public apology yet though has there? Is there any reason why MN haven't? Would they consider doing this?

Dior from Ann Clough yesterday:

"The wide reaching nature of the claim, due to the high number of libellous postings, means that the preparation of the necessary
documents may take some time. However, you and users of Mumsnet should be in no doubt that Gina will take all necessary steps to restore her
reputation and that of her hundreds of thousands of followers, including the issue of High Court proceedings as soon as practicable."

Thanks Jim Jams! Didn't take that bit in when I read it earlier...just the 'libellous' bit! It's all a farce really. I still don't think she has a case, because of posting on here calling herself names. Surely that could be seen as inciting others to do the same?

But the GF website on 11 May said:

"Gina was forced to seek legal advice regarding other very serious issues with Mumsnet, and we will in the near future make a public statement as to her reasons for this."

Has this been made yet?

Hmm.... if you read the disclaimer: "To the extent permissible by law, Mumsnet Limited assumes no responsibility for information published on this site and disclaims all liability in respect of such information. Mumsnet Limited is not liable for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a result of any actual or alleged libellous statements, infringements of intellectual property or privacy rights, or product liability, whether resulting from negligence or otherwise, including without limitation, from any use or operation of any ideas, instructions, procedures, products or methods contained in the material published on the site."

The important bit isn't actually the thing about them not being liable - it's the bit where it's referred to as "Mumsnet Limited" - if they're sued, the company gets sued, not the individuals running it. My understanding of that is that Mumsnet would just fold and be no more, with the directors only being liable for their stake in the company (which for an internet site I'm guessing would be fairly small). Justine et al. won't lose the roof over their heads.

In terms of legal precedent in this country (thinking Godfrey vs. Demon Internet), it's not the individual posters who get sued for libel, it's what's considered to be the publisher (in this case Mumsnet). However, given their disclaimer in their T&C (I'm not sure if there was a disclaimer involved in Godfrey vs. DI - I assume the rash of disclaimers came about BECAUSE of that test case), I'm not sure how sympathetic the court would be anyway - especially as Mumsnet have gone out of the way to remove the offending postings (which Demon Internet didn't do, hence the court case).

OH come one now, surely someone must have a contact in Private Eye.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Yes but even if you're in the right, yuo still have to hire legal bods to prove you're ok, and that costs so much money. There would be no guarantees you would get awarded costs either

I emailed PE about it when it first kicked off

Yes Piffle, but they can throw up their hands at any point and say "sorry, Mumsnet Limited has run out of money and is folding" - it's still stressful, but the roof over their head is not under threat. I was trying to be reassuring :)

Either that or it would be one hell of a whiparound :)

oh I thought mumsnet wasn't a limited company. Was it in the US that a poster was sued for defamation on an internest site.

GeorginaA - phew, someone who understands libel law