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:
martian · 22/05/2006 22:57

... meaning ... ?

tamum · 22/05/2006 23:01

I agree martian, the vitriol in those posts was astonishing. However much sympathy one can have with GF's position, she was seriously raving on that thread. I was gobsmacked, frankly.

martian · 22/05/2006 23:05

Me too. It was hard to actually believe it was her. I know she gets a lot of stick everywhere and it must get to her at some point but to be in the public eye and behave like that was astonishing!

Caligula · 22/05/2006 23:06

Just a reference to a mad comment by some Ann Somebody or other who claimed to be connected to GF and did a link to a sweary thread. The implication being that because there was once a thread about swearing on mumsnet, everything else that is posted is invalid.

MNHQ
JustineMumsnet · 23/05/2006 09:33

Hello hello,
No there has yet to be any clarification or statement from GF or her associates as to what the "serious issue" was. We are still "on notice" with regards to legal proceedings against us but for now it's all gone (ominously? Or maybe that's just me - I'm a worrier) quiet.
MNHQ

cod · 23/05/2006 09:34

jsutine did oyu get chickens in the end?

MNHQ
JustineMumsnet · 23/05/2006 09:34

pardon?

cod · 23/05/2006 09:37

chickens
i rememrb one fo your dhs wantded chickesn in the garden - was it carrie adn we found that egglu a dn i SO wanted hwoever it was to get one

cod · 23/05/2006 09:38

\link{http://www.omlet.co.uk/products_services/products_services.php?view=Chickens\arf att eh web site name adn theblok onf hte homepage}

cod · 23/05/2006 09:39

\can wehave a small holding topic?

MNHQ
JustineMumsnet · 23/05/2006 09:40

oh the pod thing - actually he wanted his mother-in-law (my mum) to have one so the kids could play with them and we could have fresh eggs when we visit. she said no!

cod · 23/05/2006 09:41

oh for gosdssake
how unkind

snort

Twiglett · 23/05/2006 12:48

hey Justine .. how come you didn't understand cod's first chickens question where only your name and the word 'you' were misspelt yet had no problems at all deciphering the total drivel in her explanatory post? Grin

Original poster
hunkermunker · 23/05/2006 14:15

Right, ladies, this seems to have descended into talk of chickens and grammar pedantry, so if I might just bring it back on track? OK? Wink

Justine, can I suggest that you treat the lawyers like you'd treat a small child you were potty training? Tell them if they can produce something sensible, you'll send them a packet of chocolate buttons. After all, whatever they do send you will be...well, just continue the analogy Grin

OP posts:
MNHQ
JustineMumsnet · 24/05/2006 06:42

To keep you in the picture we received this from Ann Clough yesterday eve:

"Dear Ms. Roberts,

I am surprised that you have any doubt about the position being taken by Gina Ford. Gina has made it abundantly clear through her lawyers that
she has never, at any time, tried to restrain reasonable discussion or debate regarding her childcare advice. She felt obliged to seek legal
advice after unjustified and libellous personal attacks were posted about her on your website. Such attacks also questioned her experience
of working with mothers and babies and the authenticity of her books.

Further, as a result of Mumsnet's failure to make clear to its members that Gina Ford has no intention to take legal steps to restrain
reasonable debate, and its refusal to agree reasonable terms of settlement to resolve these serious libels of her, she was forced to conclude that she had no alternative but to issue court proceedings, which she intends to do.

The wide reaching nature of the claim, due to the high number of libellous postings, means that the preparation of the necessary
documents may take some time. However, you and users of Mumsnet should be in no doubt that Gina will take all necessary steps to restore her
reputation and that of her hundreds of thousands of followers, including the issue of High Court proceedings as soon as practicable.

Ann Clough"

PinkKerPlink · 24/05/2006 06:53

really sorry you are going through this justine, sounds tedious

Caligula · 24/05/2006 06:54

Shock Blimey.

Good lord, what a very unwise course of action. I'm almost beginning to feel sorry for Ms Ford, taking legal action against a mother's website is almost guaranteed to destroy her reputation, not restore it. FGS, if Ginababe really was her, those threads will be read out in open court and published in the media. How can she possibly think this will restore her reputation? And it's interesting to note that she feels mumsnet has made her need to "restore" her reputation. I hadn't noticed that all the threads were being printed on a daily basis in the Daily Mail. Oh well.

I hope this isn't causing you too much stress at Mumsnet Towers.

Pruni · 24/05/2006 07:00

But since you did post to say waht kind of comment was acceptable - I forget what thread it was on - and have pulled numerous presumably libellous posts - what is the point of this?

Makes me thing that -seriously - pulling every thread with any mention of Ms Ford or CLBB is the only thing to do, ad infinitum...

liath · 24/05/2006 07:02

Crikey!

I can only see this costing her an absolute fortune and not doing a lot for her reputation, but how stressful for everyone involved.

Caligula · 24/05/2006 07:10

Yes agree with Pruni how highly disingenuous to pretend that you hadn't made it clear her methods could be discussed. You'd made it perfectly clear to me!

Kittypickle · 24/05/2006 07:30

I think MN has made it completely clear that the threat of legal action was not regarding her methods but to do with the personal attacks on GF. There are a number of posts by MN Towers that clearly state that.

IF GF was Ginababe I do now feel very sorry for her as to my mind the only outcome of court action will be that she will be held as a figure of ridicule by the press when the full details come out. Also agree that with the current situation that banning all mention of her is now necessary as it appears that MN's previous posts have been miscontrued GF & legal team (though I though they were very clear and can't see how that can happen)

Kittypickle · 24/05/2006 07:49

Also, by taking forward this legal action and saying that "Gina has made it abundantly clear through her lawyers that
she has never, at any time, tried to restrain reasonable discussion or debate regarding her childcare advice" I can imagine this will encourage a media frenzy of looking at her methods to see what these are that inspires comments deemed by the author to be sufficiently libellous to go to court. Seeing that no one is in agreement as to the correct way to raise babies, there will inevitably be a number of journalists who disagree with her methods and take this opportunity to state so in a reasonable manner, resulting in a further round of bad publicity for Ms Ford. I hate seeing someone put themselves through things like this and feel genuinely sorry Ms Ford and hope she re-thinks her action whilst she has the chance.

snafu · 24/05/2006 07:59

I am completely at a loss to understand how she thinks all this is going to 'restore her reputation' - which has far as I can see has suffered no damage. Yet.

There is such a thing as bad publicity. The number of people who have read those MN threads is miniscule compared to the number (hundreds of thousands, apparently) of people who've bought her books. She's made her point re: the ginababe thread - iirc she got a huge and heartfelt apology at the time from evita, if not from others, and the thread was pulled. This course of action will only bring all of that into the public eye and I utterly fail to see how she's going to come up smelling of roses if it does.

Sorry you are having to deal with this, Justine et al. You're always so good-humoured about it when it must be incredibly stressful.

threebob · 24/05/2006 08:01

And now it seems I've insulted her Scones.

tigermoth · 24/05/2006 08:01

I feel clear about how her methods can be discussed, thanks to mumsnet pointing this out. I too feel sorry for her in a way.

I felt sorry for her on the first thread she wrote attacking evita - I was there at the beginning, too. She seemed very, very angry. The language seemed out of control to me.

I also really feared for evita reading it - she was threatened with 15 minutes worth of fame (ie infamy). It doesn't sound like much, but at the time, I was shocked - and I have read a lot of shocking stuff on mumsnet that washes over me. Had I been evita reading this for the first time, I truly would have felt frightened and very threatened. I replied to ginababe in this vein.

It seemed to me that she was so emotional that the best thing to do was to leave it. As I didn't know the full story, and what exactly evita had said to her, I logged off. Wasn't sure if the ginababe poster was a troll or someone who knew evita in real life. Both theories very wrong as it turned out. But I have rarely seen such an upset sounding message on mumsnet. I dread to think how Gina feels about all the other parenting sites - I assume mumsnet is not the only site to have lots of GF threads.

Really sorry mumsnet is having this hassle and really sorry Gina Ford is so deeply affected by what is written on the internet.