Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

<<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:
Enid · 26/05/2006 10:21

ditto to anchovies post

littlemadam · 26/05/2006 10:23

I'm quite new on here, and missed all the GF threads, but this all seems very extreme. Mumsnet is really helpful if you need some unbiased (usually!) advice.Smile
I am an (ex) lawyer too, and would agree with all anchovy says!! I did some libel many years ago and we always told aggrieved clients that the fair comment defence meant all the criticism would be rehashed over and over and would probably ruin their rep much more! i spent the first two years of my career writing stroppy letters, lawyers just LOVE them!! Can't see it playing well in the press, rich parenting guru v mums......

martian · 26/05/2006 10:24

And I am not martianbishop Smile. Maybe we're from a neighbouring planet though?

www, will email you later.

bloss · 26/05/2006 11:19

Personally, I have absolutely no problem in understanding how to discuss her methods without getting libellous. You say that you think the method is, for instance, ineffective or damaging to the child or whatever. And you refrain from imputing motives to her of which you know nothing, and making direct personal attacks. Easy peasy. Except that many people simply cannot control themselves.

However, that is really by the by. The real issue is this dispute NOW. As tempting as it is to get all pugnacious and so on, can I point out that it seems to me that GF's decision MUST be highly emotional. As it has been pointed out on here, it will do great damage to her if she were to pursue it. And the fact that (as we all agree) she has made this situation worse and not simply shrugged off what was, admittedly, a long stream of puerile and vitriolic abuse only goes to show (IMHO) that behind this is a person who is genuinely hurt. But I'm not surprised at all that she has reacted this way. I don't think that by publishing a book on sleep and feeding patterns, one necessarily expects to be up for attacks like, say, Tony Blair or something.

Anyway, a good lawyer never EVER advises their client to litigate. Certainly not in a case like this. So, like Anchovy, I am skeptical that this will end up in court. However, the best way to ensure it would do so would be to up the ante in the fight, so that it might be driven at her end by emotion and not pragmatism. Clients frequently ignore their lawyers' advice because they feel strongly about it, even if it's not the wisest course of action. The more we react on here, the more we drive her into a corner where she is angry, hurt and can't back down without losing face. Of course she is seeking damages for what has been said about her. She's feeling very bruised and battered. And this place simply hasn't let up on her - and I don't mean just since this thing erupted. I've been on this site longer than most and it has made regular appearances as long as I've been here, with the nastiness only gathering intensity over time.

I really think the best thing for MN is if we all go quietly away and leave it. They know we support them and they know that we will do what we can to keep MN above water. But I am sympathetic to both sides and think it's really really sad and awful that it has come to this. And frankly, I think the lack of self-restraint (as opposed to self-censorship) from some of US has caused this problem for Justine, Carrie, Rachel et al. Exercising some now would be the kindest thing we could do.

niceglasses · 26/05/2006 11:25

Very good post Bloss, and have to agree.

morningpaper · 26/05/2006 11:25

I think blaming MNers for this is extremely unfair.

If anyone is going to get emotional, it is MOTHERS who have very strong opinions on the rights and wrongs of how to bring up children. You want experts who feel strongly about their specialist area? Here's several thousand of them!

Freckle · 26/05/2006 11:35

Whilst I agree with bloss to a degree, you have to wonder why she has become so terribly hurt and upset by what has been said on this website, but is apparently unconcerned by what is being said on, e.g., the Guardian website. There is some pretty horrid stuff posted on there, but not a whimper of protest from GF.

Is it because Mumsnet is vulnerable financially, whereas the Guardian has some pretty deep coffers to fight any attempt at censorship?

Jimjamskeepingoffvaxthreads · 26/05/2006 11:35

I read GF threads before all this and always thought they were fairly mixed. She did have people standing up for her methods (like yourself bloss). My view was that her methods were not for but would suit others. My view that the methods were not for me, did not come from mnet, but from watching my cousin and his wife use her methods. If anything contributions on mumsnet from people like yourself have made me realise her methods can be lifesavers for some.

Now I can understand her requests for points 1-4 as disclosed by Justine yesterday, yes of course an apology is in order if she has been hurt- I'm sure everyone would agree, and without knowing the details 1-4 appear to be reasonable requests for someone who is concerned about reputation. But I don't understand why she is going for 5 and 6, and it is 5 and 6 that she is talking about going to court over. And she must realise that publishers assets (not company ones) are at risk. That's the bit I don't get, why someone would do that, when the apologising bit has been agreed. Maybe I am missing something.

morningpaper · 26/05/2006 11:40

As others have noticed, other parenting sites have been pulling GF discussions in the last few weeks.

This is from the Google cache for the Natural Parenting (www.natural-parenting.com) Forum:

"It appears that Gina's solicitors have threatened legal action (against the NSPCC we suspect) unless Jane's original post which questioned the benefits of the Gina Ford parenting books was removed from this site! At Jane's request, I have done so. This thread shall now be closed to further posts as there is no point in attempting a fair discussion if censorship is enforced in this manner."

bloss · 26/05/2006 11:41

Jimjams, I honestly don't know why.

However, I can imagine that if I was feeling extremely emotionally battered - especially by a community which I previously had had strong and positive links with - then an apology which was given only given after threats of legal action might not feel very genuine, and hence pretty unsatisfying. I can also imagine that if I found things that awful, and it had gone on for years, that I might also think that it is the only way to get it to stop in the future. That said, I still do not think it is a wise or appropriate course of action. But I can understand it.

Freckle · 26/05/2006 11:42

Well, I suspect that that site is also run on a shoe-string. I would be more impressed if GF showed she was prepared to take on the big guns in order to protect her reputation rather than only aiming at relatively small fry.

martian · 26/05/2006 11:42

Freckle, we don't know for sure that she isn't taking action against other sites or newspapers or whatever.

I agree with quite a lot of what bloss has said although I still think there's something deeply flawed about GF's thinking here and the way she's chosen to go about expressing her hurt both on threads in the past - the threat of '15 minutes of fame' etc. for anyone who remembers it and with this attempt to bring action against MN.

BUT she does get a lot of stick and a lot of personal attacks which, for instance, I've never heard being written about Christopher Green et al. And I think that's what's bugging her that she's being singled out for, sometimes, 'personal abuse' most of which is unnecessary because we don't really know anything about 'her' to remark upon, unless we've met her (I don't think she's been interviewed on t.v.?), apart from biased newspaper interviews and the way we interpret her through her books.

If one good thing could come out of this it wouldn't be in any way to curb freedom of speech but to persuade people that hurtful personal attacks are never a good thing.

morningpaper · 26/05/2006 11:43

Ah sorry - just checked the dates on that and it was a couple of years ago - NOT recent!

martian · 26/05/2006 11:43

Crossed posts with lots of other info. Jeez, I'm a slow writer ...

arfy · 26/05/2006 11:46

The idea of damages is utterly outrageous.

Anyone fancy an attempt at quantifying the 'damage' done to GFs reputation against an actual cost of all the free advertising that has been gained by all hundreds of positive posts about the CLBB method on Mumsnet?

In real terms it could actually end up with GF owing Mumsnet money.

And if this kind of legal action is potentially happening to other sites, then it is a PR disaster of monumental proportions and a very, very foolish action which will backfire spectacularly, frankly.

dinosaure · 26/05/2006 11:46

If mumsnet doesn't already have it, I think that investing in some libel insurance might be a good idea...

Too late for hte current spat though obviously.

Blu · 26/05/2006 11:50

Bloss and Jimjams - good posts.
Bloss - I have found myself on different sides of the discussion from you over many things, including the approach of TCLBB - but here, I agree. Lets keep our counsel, wait patiently, and take our lead from MNHQ when we can do anything to help in any way.

Marina · 26/05/2006 11:53

Agree utterly with blu, bloss and jimjams. That was an extremely interesting quote there JJ.

Marina · 26/05/2006 11:54

Excuse me...Morningpaper's quote not Jimjams! Blush

Marina · 26/05/2006 11:55

And my posts crossing too! Still interesting by implication though...

niceglasses · 26/05/2006 11:59

Like some other posters I feel a bit torn as well. I acutally rang GF Shock when I had ds1 all those years ago as had immense feeding probs. If I had known about MN, may not have needed it.

However, am puzzled and saddened at her choice, though like Bloss can see how she might feel hurt and cornered a wee bit, but her actions do seem strange in the context of free speech.

Mercy · 26/05/2006 12:02

I'm not convinced that hurt feelings come into it tbh. Rather that it's an attempt for forestall any negative reviews of the latest book, therefore potentially damaging her reputation and affecting sales.

tamum · 26/05/2006 12:03

Yes, morningpaper, extremely interesting, however old, and it rather goes against the idea of a particular attachment to MN having caused extra hurt. I think it's absolutely right that personal attacks should be stopped, and indeed should never have happened, but the damages claim against MN is indefensible, and the curb on any form of criticism which is likely to result is appalling.

JoolsToo · 26/05/2006 12:04

maybe we should flood her 'in' box with links to offending threads from around the globe and ask what she's going to do about those!

bloss · 26/05/2006 12:06

Great idea, Jools. That'll really help Carrie et al.

Swipe left for the next trending thread