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:
Caligula · 25/05/2006 20:16

Wotchit Enid, the word unstylish is derogatory.

expatinscotland · 25/05/2006 20:16

She's fired me up more than Gordon Brown, JT :o.

franke · 25/05/2006 20:17

But you don't respond expat, you just write the one phrase and then leave it. And then a few other people write exactly the same phrase and nothing else. It kills the discussion or makes a very dull thread. As I said I'm clutching at straws if MN aren't 'allowed' to introduce a formal ban.

Enid · 25/05/2006 20:17

oh sorry wrong thread

SenoraPostrophe · 25/05/2006 20:17

You can deride the methods without deriding the woman though, Caligula.

Can we start a fighting fund?

JoolsToo · 25/05/2006 20:17

my monies on you kiddo! [scared emoticon]

Grin
expatinscotland · 25/05/2006 20:18

'As I said I'm clutching at straws if MN aren't 'allowed' to introduce a formal ban. '

Yeah, I'd say.

And MN is perfectly free to introduce a ban on all mention of her. There's nothing illegal in that.

batters · 25/05/2006 20:19

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Rhubarb · 25/05/2006 20:21

What would the court costs be in a case like this?

Perhaps if this went public, some well-meaning lawyer could offer their services for free? I think it should go public personally, she's stated her intention to go to court regardless, keeping it away from the public arena won't change that, and right now we might need the public's help.

franke · 25/05/2006 20:22

Well I'd say there isn't much of a case against MN but GF seems to think there is, so by the same token I'm sure she'd find a blanket ban hurts her feelings or whatever too.

expatinscotland · 25/05/2006 20:27

Yes, franke, but she can't claim not mentioning her at all is defamatory or libellous, b/c you have to say or write something for that to be true.

GeorginaA · 25/05/2006 20:30

Yep, I think a blanket ban would probably be the most workable solution. A shame then that all other parenting gurus would get more publicity without comparison as a result, but that's the consequences of throwing your weight around, imo.

foundintranslation · 25/05/2006 20:39

Joining all those who are Sad Angry [shocked] at this and second SP's suggestion of a fighting fund. Wish I was a lawyer.

foundintranslation · 25/05/2006 20:42
Northerner · 25/05/2006 20:49

Do you know what, I'm with Rhubarb on this going public. This is a disgrace, and more people should know about it.

There are lots of famous people who get slated on the web about their methods/profession - actors, footballers, singers etc and there has never been a case like this before.

She should be shown up for what she really is, and perhaps we can get a petition of some sort showing our support for MN and the freedom of speech.

WideWebWitch · 25/05/2006 20:52

Thanks to everyone who said kind things to me. I'm pleased that GF has confirmed she is not taking action against individual posters and I will sleep better tonight but I still feel it's a huge shame for mumsnet that this whole thing is happening.

Anyway, I'm not going to say any more on the subject, it's very sad for everyone concerned I think.

tigermoth · 25/05/2006 20:54

I feel so sad about mumsnet being forced to police every thread - who exactly will do this, day in day out - all the hundreds of threads on the boards. Even if lots of people volunteer, how realistic is this? I will volunteer time, money or anything else I can offer.

Ages ago on another thread I asked if some type of computer programme could be adapted to automatically clean the boards of GF references - It's probably a silly idea but I will repeat it again. Is this a possibility? It would save a lot of working hours.

Another thought - assuming GF is not asking other parenting sites to follow her lawyers instructions, how does this sit legally? Does she have to show mumsnet is a special case, alone amongst parenting sits, the parents who post here are are especially personal in their attacks on GF. This is why GF lawyers have singled out mumsnet for a strong counter attack.

You see, I cannot believe that mumsnet is the only site that has contained personal criticism of Gina Ford - if her lawyers are letting those sites remain is it legal for her to ask one site to adapt?

tamum · 25/05/2006 21:01

There do seem to be a lot of cleared threads on other parenting boards- I wonder if it is just MN?

WWW, I'm glad you are feeling a bit better. I felt absolutely awful for you.

Socci · 25/05/2006 21:06

I really cannot believe this Sad I have seen personal attacks on other sites - why just pick on Mumsnet? But I assume from what Justine says that mumsnet wouldn't be held responsible? Or have I got that wrong.

Pruni · 25/05/2006 21:11

I just registered on the first usable one that came up in google when I typed in "parenting forum".

They haven't cleared their boards.
(If MN ever gets coloured postings, different font sizes, avatars, tickers or bouncing icons, I am off. Grin)

franke · 25/05/2006 21:11

That's interesting Tamum. I wonder if she can afford to take all these sites to court. I also wonder what the effect would be of every parenting site she's threatened banning any mention of her.

morningpaper · 25/05/2006 21:23

This is just incredibly depressing

She has sold over half a million copies of her Contented Little Baby book.

And she wants to bleed dry a parenting site that supports thousands of mothers - WHY?

morningpaper · 25/05/2006 21:26

"The Contented Little Baby Book, has sold over half a million copies since it was published in 1999 .... Some mothers love it ... Others hate it. All of which is "fine", says Ford, because we live in a democracy."

(Interview with Gina Ford, The Daily Telegraph, 29 April 2006)

MNHQ
JustineMumsnet · 25/05/2006 21:34

Hi again,
We can see where you are coming from regarding a total ban but we don't think it's the way forward for a few reasons:
a) It's not practical - imagine telling new members wanting to talk GF routines that they can't.
b) It doesn't really helps with regard to the specifics of our current situation (ie it's not one of the conditions outlined by GF's lawyers to prevent litigation)
c) (And this is probably the biggest reason in our view) Whatever happened to free speech? We are a parenting website - we have to be able to discuss things relating the UK's best-selling childcare guru, surely? We think that's a thing worth fighting for.

Incidently according to a communication from her website to it's members which was posted on Mumsnet, Gina Ford has made it clear she would have no problem being banned from being discussed here as she has no wish to be asscociated with Mumsnet in any way. See \link{http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk?topicid=9&threadid=172473\this thread} for more on that.

Many thanks for offers of help regarding publicity and funds. We'll let you know if it comes to that.

MN Towers

JoolsToo · 25/05/2006 21:39

"Whatever happened to free speech?"

that's what we'd all like to know!