<<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?!)

And I will be bumping this just now for any members who are in the legal profession or connected to the press.

I agree that a ban of any mention has to be the only way forward - even "positive" comments can be misconstrued, plus since the person's name is also the brand, I don't see how you won't have "grey area" posts iyswim. Won't post an example, if you don't mind...

&

I also feel that a total ban is the way to go. As Hunker says things could be misunderstood. So for example you could says that 'X's advice is totaly wonderful', since you can't hear a voice you could think it was a sarcastic comment, or ironic.

far better to ban all discussion of this person and her methods, to avoid any misunderstanding and possible further legal action.

Much better all round

Oh, Justine, how bloody awful for you all. I am so angry on your behalf - it is a farcical situation.

Anything that can be done to help, please let us know. That includes fundraising, reinstating payment of subs, whatever you need.

And I would be thrilled to comply with a blanket ban of any mention of anything to do with this woman. Positive or negative, ban it all.

Also makes it clearer for us all to police, since any mention can just be "We don't discuss GF on MN, for legal reasons" as an explanation to any newbie and any one of us can report the post and mention on said thread that we've reported it.

I don't like it, but I think it's the only way it's possible to work it.

Agree. Total ban and we all police posts as per hunker's excellent suggestion.

Ditto to fund raising or reinstated subs too.

as regards No 2 on the list - am shocked that GF would think that she's discussed that often. Sure she's getting discussed now for obvious reasons, but how often before all this furore?

Conceited or wot?

has anyone contacted the press yet?

oh well I am glad we have cleared that up
she just wants MONEY then?
nice
as she is so poor and the people running this website are so rich?
Justine - are you getting any legal advice? libel is not my area (and I am not currently practising/insured) but I am sure there are lawyers on here who would be able to help you. I would happily review anything on an informal basis....

deleting defamatory postings is one thing.
but insisting that anything derogatory is deleted... well, good lord.
how very precious. how very precious indeed.

Perhaps MN could start charging £40 p.a. for membership of its talk boards? That should nicely cover any legal costs.

shall we organise a march - banners and all?

If it's legal for those cartoon protestors should be ok for some mums

good point harpsi

snafu

OMG!
I am stupendously amazed that it has come to this
Mumsnet is about mumsnetters and about Carrie Justine and Rachel whose baby this is.
Who worked hard to bring us this website which has given so much to so many.
Seriously CJR Inc what if anything can we do?
I mean this in a PRACTICAL manner bearing in mind ourselves,spouses and siblings who might be suitably qualified to assist in a professional manner so to speak perhaps?(aside from the obvious)

I would also strongly support a total ban, but Justine was against this when we suggested it before, and obviously it has to be up to MN Towers.

I am so, so angry about this I can't tell you. I would love to say what I think, but of course I can't.

It's so ironic that when a total ban was discussed before that it was Justine et al who said no, mothers (who used her) need to be able to discuss her methods. MN supported promoting GF

tamum, have you read Justines update?

in light of that I feel that the site will be laying itself open to popential litigation if she is discussed.

This isn't a spiteful, throwing the toys out of the cot gesture, but and pragmatic response to the legal situation.

I'm sure this will satisfy her needs and wishes

Yes I've raed it, but I don't think the situation hasn't changed dramatically since the last discussion, just that they've gone public with the details.

I don't know what to type .

I'm shocked & appalled. Damages? [shocked]

ahh, I thought this was more information to them.

I will, naturaly go with whatever MN Towers decides.

Personaly I feel that a blanket ban is the way to go.

She cannot complain if she is not discussed, simple as that.

OH MY GOD. I can not beleive this. I don't know what to say.

Don't know how I feel about a total ban though, someone explain the logic please.

Justine I presume that you have got some legal advice about all of this? I personally think her claims are preposterous (I am a solicitor, but not a libel one), but I know libel claims can be so damaging and expensive. My dh is a solicitor although not libel either, but I'm sure he knows someone who can take a quick look at this for you if you need.