<<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?!)

I'm inclined to think that it's best to say little if anything

hands up then who questioned the 'authenticity of her books'

as far as I can see they are actually really and truly books .. they appear to have pages and a cover .. yup a book by all definition

I am avoiding commenting on any of the advice between laid out between the pages you will notice

[email protected] for Hugo Rifkind

Hang on so according to the lovely Ann

......, 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....."

"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."

I completely fail top understand the logic of this. So because mumsnet failed to say that Gina was not going to sue, she is going to sue.

The difference is "reasonable" debate right, but mumsnet deleted all unreasonable comments as soon as possible. What more could they do? I know who I think is being unreasonable.

This is quite serious though, the costs of going to high court can equal losing house and home costs, even if you win.

Which Hollywood star was it who did that? Claudia Schiffer??? I think it was her, but apologies if it was someone else. Her cook put out a cookery book based on recipes that Claudia liked, with little snippets of Claudia information- nice stuff, nothing nasty. So Claudia sued (for what I'm not sure?? breach of contract perhaps) and the cook lost everything, home etc. I remember India Knight wrote a piece asking what exactly the point of it all was.

Anyway ramble not to compare GF with Claudis Schiffer but just to point out that Hollywood stars in a huff can cause someone to lose their home, and I'm guessing that the seriousness of going to the high court is in the same league. I'm worried about Justine and Carrie, this is serious stuff.

Ah but Twiglett, you're allowed to comment on what's in the book. GF has graciously given permission to have her methods debated, even by mothers.

We have been told that this is about:

1. GF wanting to make it clear that she is not officially associated with Mumsnet because people will be confused when they look Gina Ford up in search engines and find her name here.
2. GF not wanting to be associated with Mumsnet because we swear a lot.
3. GF objecting to "libellous personal attacks."

It's v. confusing.

"questioned her experience of working with mothers and babies"

I don't think anyone has done this. We all know she has worked with over 300 babies and mothers, which is great.

I also don't understand how Mumsnet has failed "to resolve these serious libels of her" as we have been told to ensure that we discuss her childcare method failings only (and not her personal failings, uh should there be any which I'm sure there aren't of course :)) and any posts which might be construed as inappropriate have been swiftly deleted and a new tool has been put in place to ensure that any possibly negative posts of any kind are instantly brought to the attention of Mumsnet Towers.

So it's all v. confusing innit.

oh 2happy- you got there before me. Glad I'm not the only one struggling with the logic!

Also, if it's nothing to do with the swearing then what was that earlier email from Anne Clough all about?
I don't think GF is being very clear about what she wants MN Towers to do. MN Towers, on the other hand, seem to be doing their very best to behave properly here.

I can't see that she has a case to answer but what Jimjams says about MN potentially being in trouble even if they win is very worrying.

The whole thing is utterly bizarre and extremely worrying for MN Towers. None of it makes any sense at all - what kind of legal advice is GF getting? Sounds very odd to me.

solicitor people .. under what circumstances would MN not have to pay costs then?

It seems totally unfair that someone can bring a case against another party and lose but the other party is still penalised financially

I think when Ann Clough refers to "Mumsnet's failure to make clear to its members that Gina Ford has no intention to take legal steps to restrain reasonable debate....." she means that MN didn't make clear that the threatened action was about personal attacks/offensive comments about her, rather than reasonable debate of her methods. It's all a load of hogwash IMHO. But I think that's what Ann Clough means - that the distinction between personal attacks on GF and debate of her methods wasn't made clear.

but it was made very clear - I remember Justine spelling it out for us - even the way in which we could discuss her methods without being defamatory. Has anyone contacted the Times yet? And I really think Ann Clough's two explanations [the swearing thing and this latest one] are worthy of a Private Eye lampooning.

Does Evita still post here, or did the furor cause her to leave? Presume she's at least changed her name if she's still around?

It seems to me that GF's strenuous (some would say aggressive/litigious) efforts to "protect her reputation" have given this debate a life of it's own, instead of allowing it to fade into oblivion.

Carmenere made the very good point that "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."

am repeating it because I couldn't put it nearly as well

this is utterly, utterly ridiculous and I am saddened, really saddened at the whole thing. If GF does happen to read this, please, please don't do it. For your sake and ours.

DH (a lawyer) said that one problem can be if the court awards laughable damages- say of £1, because you are still liable for the other sides costs, and the best thing is often to settle before court. Which of course leaves the mnet owners seriously out of pocket.

I don't understand why someone would do this to be honest, the offending posts have been removed, I can't believe it's remotely affected the sales of her book- especially if she has hundreds of thousands of followers. I end up being left with thought that, rather like Claudia Schiffer, she's doing it because she can, but really, really don't understand the point of that. Life is stressful enough, why make it more so? It would be stressful for her as well surely if the original ginababe postings were read out in open court. Why would you do that to yourself? Let alone go after Justine et al, who although owners did not even say the offensive things themselves (and in fact deleted them as soon as they were made aware of the situation).

Evita did change her name, although I have no idea if she still posts. I didn't see the original thread, but I did see Evita's apology. Evita was actually originally a GF follower and used her routines.

I bought The Private Eye today. I can see why ruty suggests contacting them, but I have a horrible feeling it could make a bad situation worse.

I was perfectly clear that methodology was fine to discuss but personal remarks were out of the question, so I can't understand Ann Clough's and GF's position either. Disingenuous is the word all right.
Just posting to add my support and a willingness to contribute to a fighting fund as required.
I too would love to see Private Eye take an interest in this whole issue and agree with EIS that you can't litigate the whole antenatal clinic/NCT group/playgroup gates network. Punitive legal action has a habit of rebounding on the instigator IME.

x-posted JJ. Why do you think Private Eye would make matters worse, out of interest?

Marina, presumably because Private Eye take the piss and wind people up. It's what they do, and they're v. good at it. If someone is already suffering from a sense of humour and sense of proportion failure of that magnitude, being satirised in the national press is unlikely to calm things down. Might spread the pain around, though -- PE are pros at getting sued.

It does make me wonder this whole issue.
I mean if anyone has seen the housepricecrash website you'll have an idea of what they think of Kirty Allsop, known affectionately as Krusty Alslop!!!

jimjams, does your DH think GF has a case when countless other websites have talked about her in no uncertain terms? Doesn't it just look like a personal vendetta against MN?

The trouble is, even if MN disappears (obviously I hope not!), we would all post on other parenting sites. You can bet that people might feel slightly aggrieved at losing their favourite site, and might mention it on the new site. Then...the new site might be taken to court for having had this discussion and be cleaned out. End result - no parenting sites because they have all had their coffers cleared out.

I can't help thinking that any Judge would see the situation for what it really is and throw the case out. It really is all too ridiculous.

Marina - basically what frogs said, I wonder if left alone then GF might withdraw the threat, whereas I wonder if actually going to PE will make her more determined to follow up and issue proceedings. If she had already issued proceedings then I would happily email PE, but I do wonder whether there is a chance that this can be resolved without recourse to the courts- better for everyone.

The trouble is that GF can afford to take mumsnet to court, mnet may not be able to afford to a)defend themselves or b) risk losing, and may therefore be forced into a situation where they have to pay her off (knowing then that they will still have a roof over their heads). I hope that they can afford to defend themselves and let this go to court, because the alternative seems morally wrong to me (ie they;re paying for stuff that they corrected and someone else said, can't be right).

ruty it's not dh's area at all, but he would always advise avoiding going to court, because it's always a risky procedure. This sort of action can end up bankrupting people like Justine. If GF goes ahead with legal proceedings it will be very difficult for Justine et al, even if her case isn't worth the paper it's written on.

I have been on mnet for years. I didn't have an opinion on GF really, I thought her methods were not for me- an opinion I formed before coming on here. The only thing I ever said about her was when my aunts asked why my cousin's baby was always asleep when they wanted to see him and had to eat at a certain time, I explained about GF and CLBB, and they looked confused and that was it. Now I have an opinion about her, and she features in discussions I have with friends.

Fair points JJ and Frogs, I'd never take it there myself - for MNHQ to do, but not wise.
Agree totally with your last para JJ. I have evolved from a vague feeling that the methods are not for me as a parent, to having a very firm opinion which I share with people whenever possible.

thanks for that Jimjams. I wish there was a rich benefactor out there who could help MN go to court - I really do. And agree Private Eye probably not such a good idea unless GF does actually issue proceedings - which i really hope she does not. I too didn't really have that much of an opinion about her before all this, other than her methods were not for me - and now do have an opinion about her.

at this latest development.

Also happy to donate to a fighting fund if necessary.