Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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:
Tinker · 25/05/2006 19:21

Could she complain if she wasn't allowed to be discussed?

tamum · 25/05/2006 19:21

Well I couldn't agree more, but when we suggested it Justine said she thought it was a silly idea. I've said on the other thread, unless they agree to the extent of putting a warning it's going to be really hard to enforce with new people joining. I've tried to find the thread where we discussed it but it seems to have gone.

Freckle · 25/05/2006 19:22

So, essentially, the bottom line is that she wants money because her feelings have been hurt Shock. How petty and money-grubbing.

Although this is no surprise when you realise that she charges £40pa for membership of her website, on top of all the money she makes from her books. And threatening to bring down a website which brings valuable support to thousands of mums of all levels of experience is peripheral to that.

Please note that I am referring to her actions, not to her personality.

Pruni · 25/05/2006 19:24

I think there are a lot more members of MN than the few who have posted so far who would welcome a total ban. Every time a post is deleted, could there be a curt stock sentence saying why, rather than simply 'message deleted'?

Pollyanna · 25/05/2006 19:25

but actually would it help if the press were contacted? I'm not an expert, but probably it would not be in MN's interests if this were made more public than it is - it would be easier for GF to argue that her reputation is damaged if this is in the papers rather than just 20 deleted threads which haven't even been seen by most mumsnetters.

tamum · 25/05/2006 19:27

Yes, I thought that Pollyanna. I think MN are very well-connected, media-wise, and I think it would be sensible if this were left up to them.

SoupDragon · 25/05/2006 19:27

It's all rather odd. How many people actually know or can remember what was said? (rhetorical question!) I certainly can't - never saw the original discussions and have no idea what was said other than it was personal (and therefore wrong). All this does is drag it all back up again - what does "anyone" actually hope to gain from it?? The comments are gone - more thoroughly than if they had been printed in, say, a newspaper which you can't get back. Bizarre.

Jessajam · 25/05/2006 19:27

tinker i was thinking just the same Sad

tamum · 25/05/2006 19:28

Funnily enough Soupy there's only one post in this whole saga that really sticks in my mind, and it was one addressed to Evita...

JoolsToo · 25/05/2006 19:31

has the thread with AnnClough's post been deleted? I can't find it

tamum · 25/05/2006 19:32

I'm pretty sure that's the one where we had the previous discussion of banning, JT, and I can't find that so my guess is it's gone.

SoupDragon · 25/05/2006 19:32

I think it's all got blown out of proportion. Of those people who can remember, how many (a) believe the comments to be true or (b) have let the comments chnge their perspective of the person?

None of which actually makes a blind bit of difference, obviously. I wonder why it all got this far?

SoupDragon · 25/05/2006 19:33

And I'm sure this can't be the only site with this problem so why pick on it alone?

Pollyanna · 25/05/2006 19:33

I didn't think, having looked at the definition of defamation, that GF had a strong case tbh. Her claim certainly can't be helped by the fact that there are other websites which she hasn't bothered to erm, bother,

LadyTophamHatt · 25/05/2006 19:34

Good lord!

Piffle · 25/05/2006 19:34

I well recall istting in Bettys back garden at the MN summer do coupla yrs back and.... reading thr thread and we all sat there open mouthed

Crystaltips · 25/05/2006 19:35

This isn't going to result in MN having to close down is it ???? Shock

Piffle · 25/05/2006 19:35

beety oops

GeorginaA · 25/05/2006 19:36

Interestingly, on that fishy tale case in the states, it looks like the guy suing filed for bankruptcy in the end... \link{http://fins.actwin.com/aquatic-plants/month.200105/msg00211.html\eight separate lawsuits in the end}... bizarre.

JoolsToo · 25/05/2006 19:37

oh well in that case I'm glad I kept a copy of her post! Grin I'd forgotten - wish I kept the whole thread now!

GeorginaA · 25/05/2006 19:37

Crystaltips: you do have to wonder if that isn't the goal?

Crystaltips · 25/05/2006 19:38

mmm just what i was thinking .... rather dictatorial - what a shame Sad

SaintGeorge · 25/05/2006 19:38

They'll be after you Jools. You have hard copy? Post again quick recalling exactly when you burnt it.

Tinker · 25/05/2006 19:39

I'm still wondering if banning discussion of her wouldn't also give cause for complaint. Not fair that her method can't compete with other baby gurus methods?

JoolsToo · 25/05/2006 19:39

I'm leaving the country on Saturday .....