<<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?!)

Yes, I remember the '15 minutes of fame' bit too. Deeply unpleasant and rather scary. Evita was very shaken by it.

I didn't believe ginababe was GF for a long time. I thought it was just a random internet nutter. Obviously there's a gap between the public and private persona - there is with anyone - but her postings were out-of-control and rather bizarre.

Again, quite how this will bolster her public image is beyond my tiny, fraught, sleep-deprived mind

Isn't there a statute of limitations on libel of twelve months?

"followers"

snicker

That is deeply bizarre

What's the difference between "high court" proceedings and normal court proceedings? I don't understand legal stuff

There is an awful lot of discussion about Gina's methods which is very negative - e.g. the Guardian site - much worse and more personal than here - I can't think at all what kind of posts AC is referring to - or am I missing something?

I really don't like referring to "hundreds of thousands of followers" btw - she sounds like they all dress in orange and bang tambourines

This is such a load of petty, small minded crap and will be seen as such immediately by the media. She's making a big mistake if she thinks this will do anything but anihilate her reputation. I personally disagreed with her methods long before I ever found mumsnet having formed my opinions from reading her books.
What I don't get is that a newspaper or magazine has an editor to read and decide everything that gets published in it before it gets to the public domain. So if slanderous things are published about an individual there is definite culpability. A web forum doesn't have an editor or time to monitor what is posted, one this size couldn't possibly monitor everything which is posted. The only thing Mumsnet could do is ask their members to refrain from posting offensive remarks about individuals and that is what they have done, along with removing any offensive remarks. I am in no doubt what I can or can not post about Gina Ford on this forum but to imply that the mumsnet team are responsible for what posters have said is ridiculous. I know there has been precedent in this area but was it on a forum of this size?
This whole fiasco reminds me of the schoolyard

Is GF issuing court proceedings against every website that defames her?

If not, surely that will look like she's just gunning for MN - a personal vendetta - and surely the case can be thrown out on those grounds?

Also there are a huge amount of female journalists on mumsnet, many of whom write regulary about parenting issues, and GF thinks it's a good idea to antagonise this particular sector?

Good point hunker

"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. "

So, let me get this straight. Because MN didn't make it clear that GF wasn't going to take legal action, Gf is now going to take legal action...?

I thought the lawyers had put MN "on notice" - that doesn't mean that GF wasn't giong to take legal action?

And she asked for a settlement? I wonder if MN can tell us what this was?

"So, let me get this straight. Because MN didn't make it clear that GF wasn't going to take legal action, Gf is now going to take legal action...? "

I thought it sounded a bit like that too ...

High court proceedings sounds much more serious then mere court proceedings. Also, the amounts that can be claimed in the high court are greater than in the county court.

The letter from Ann Clough is bizarre in the extreme. If GF does not intend to take court proceedings and the letter is just bluff to put the frighteners on MN, then it's a particularly nasty tactic. If she does intend to issue court proceedings because MN didn't (in her view) make it clear that she wasn't going to take court proceedings, it seems a worrying example of an unstable (and probably ill-advised) individual.

'There is such a thing as bad publicity.'

Indeed, snafu. Such as hundreds of MNetters telling all and sundry in RL about her legal action.

Go to a bookshop, see a mother or pregnant woman picking up one of her books, cue gasp of horror. Cue person holding book suddenly giving you their attention.

'Oh, don't do that! If you disagree w/it, and write about it ANYWHERE, she'll sue you, you know.'

'Really?'

'Yep. She's sueing this parenting site . . .'

FWIW, I've been on other sites were posters write things like, 'I HATE her' and the like.

It's not just MN.

The work never ends for the Thought Police.

Result is the classic scenario: I'll tell my friends, and they'll tell their friends, and they'll tell their friends . . .

EIS, I can't believe that anyone on MN who discusses this in RL is restrained in their opinion of GF, can you? And the knock-on effect of that? Well...

I presume as Ann Clough has no public persona or reputation to uphold, we can say what we like about her?

I thought that if court proceedings were going to happen then public discussion of all matters pertaining to the case was completely not allowed

??

I certainly am not restrained in my opinion of her in RL, hunker, although I have shown remarkable restraint in writing here.

But yeah, anyone w/a modicum of business sense realises how devestating bad word of mouth can be.

The problem with taking action for libel is that you potentially set yourself up for a prat-fall. You don't like what someone has said about you and you feel that your reputation has suffered as a result (which in this case is debatable), so what do you do? You launch a court case where everything that was said about you and which you didn't like is raked over again and again in the full glare of the media. Terribly sensible action......

And you run the risk that people will agree with what was said, that your reputation did not suffer and now millions of people can see that.

EIS

Wish Gina herself would come on here to explain.

I just feel bad that MN Towers are having to deal with all this stress, are they not supposed to be 'relaxing' on maternity leave ?

Bring back the subs if the coffers get low with fighting this Justine.

xx

Didn't that man from Coronation Street sue once because someone called him boring....and it went to court and he lost.....because he was boring.

As court proceedings have not yet been issued, I suppose anyone can say anything they like about it all. Especially someone like Hugo Rifkind in the Times - as he is already interested in the hob-nail boot approach of GF to perceived criticism. Anyone got his email address??

\link{http://www.timesonline.co.uk/section/0,,260,00.html\Take your pic for Times contacts here}

Would probably be [email protected]

Feel so sorry for the Mumsnet team having to deal with this. Having been a poster for 5 years and seen so many interesting debates about so many parenting techniques, I am amazed and disappointed that Gina Ford feels it necessary to do this.
If there is anything I can do to help - I will.