<<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?!)

To reiterate my post of 6:36:27PM

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

Even if Mumsnet were pulled, there's nothing stopping the team, if they want to, to start up a new site named Mumsnet2 is there?

Money?

No, but I imagine if they have personally lost lots of money, their hearts might not be in it :(

I thought that it was decided as Mumsnet is a Limited Company, they won't lose lots of money? And I'm pretty sure we'd all agree to pay a subscription if we'd have to! Just looking at it from all angles really, considering everything that has happened, they'd probably be mad to start a new Mumsnet!

I agree with total ban, she surely can't sue because we fail to discuss her. New poster can just be told, sorry we can't discuss here, have you tried, e.g. BMc, UKP, Mumsonline (insert name of alternative parenting site).

Total ban particularly in light of Hijackers Demand No. 2: That we [MNHQ]implement a procedure whereby we review postings on a regular basis each day and delete any postings which are derogatory and/or defamatory of Gina Ford.

A headache easily avoided by banning all mention of her entirely.

I'll go with that. Seems a shame as newbies must wonder what on earth is the matter and it might put them off. But better that that the alternative law suits!

Better get this thread deleted then!

\link{http://www.carter-ruck.com/FAQs/Libel%20and%20Slander%20Cases.html\Interesting Q&A on libel and slander cases}

Well, there you go then. It was all fair comment.

well why not have an announcement on the home page and in any introducotory emails? "sorry, but due to threat of legal action MNHQ will remove all postings mentioning GF?" Would that be libellous? Seems simplest!

If MN could get into trouble for formally introducing a ban on the discussion of this person and her methods (and right now I believe anything could happen) then I think we as posters should introduce our own self-imposed ban. After all nobody can force us to discuss something if we don't want to.

and given that individual MNetters whould also be held responsible for their posts on the subject, I for one, would not feel secure to enter a discussion of the ideas of someone I know to be prepared to use litigation.

Better by far to protect ourselves and MN from the threat of litigation by stopping all discusison (any discussion I entered would be damn short though since I have never read any of GF's books )

I cannot believe that anyone anywhere, can seriously believe that demanding that anything "derogatory" to them be deleted, is reasonable. Being derogatory is not the same as being libellous. What is the definition of derogatory? Would a law court find this demand entirely sane and reasonable?

I can't see how you can possibly comply with this except by banning all mention of her, because it is impossible to honestly discuss her methods without being derogatory of them if you don't agree with them, surely? And if you allow anything to stand which echoes anything Penelope Leach has said about GF, she'll hold you to hostage on an ongoing basis, with all the stress and hassle that that involves. How can that possibly be resolved?

I guess the real problem with a self-imposed ban is that people who used her methods and liked them would be less likely to go along with a ban, so there might be positive posts going completely unopposed. It's not going to be trivial I don't think.

what she can't stop us doing is spreading the word in RL

I have come ridiculously late to this thread and it's making my brain hurt.

And I'm cross.

I see your point Tamum but there must be a way of just introducing a stock phrase into a thread which becomes part of MN parlance. Even just "I don't agree with GF methods" and leave it at that. I don't know, I'm clutching at straws. I'm just appalled by this daft situation.

Yes franke, there just has to be a way round it. If MN is still here of course

at this latest development. Groundhog day.

Have not read it all since hte latest announcement, but I do like Carmener's suggestion in her second sentence in her post of 10.45.

Have spoken to dh (no expert) who reckons as MN have refused (I think) to give details of individual members registration, it's quite hard to trace exact details, ie, real name and address, of individual posters.

Still happy to contribute to a fighting fund, especially to any individual members who may may become involved.

We will fight them on the beaches, etc

'I see your point Tamum but there must be a way of just introducing a stock phrase into a thread which becomes part of MN parlance. Even just "I don't agree with GF methods" and leave it at that'

But then how to respond to the poster who then asks, 'What don't you agree with?'

'I can't answer that b/c if GF finds it even derogatory, nothing to do w/defamatory, I could be personally sued.'

Cue poster then remarking, 'Really?

And the entire thing kicks off again, w/GFs lawyers waiting to pounce.

Not worth it.

NOPE

just shocked and appalled for MN Towers.

IMO, a ban's the only way to go.

so she needs the cash

how deeply unstylish of her

methinks expat is willing to don some boxing gloves