Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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:
oliveoil · 24/05/2006 13:30

How much would it cost to go to court, ballpark figure?

morningpaper · 24/05/2006 13:34

The mad thing is, anyone looking at this thread and others relating to GF's campaign against MN could just Google fgor ginababe and evita and find the whole horrible thread for themselves in Google's cache - and that is FAR more damaging for GF's reputation than anything on this site. You'd think she'd want to avoid bringing attention to that at all costs.

Kathy1972 · 24/05/2006 13:37

Just tried that, mp, and all I got was a thread from a day later discussing why that thread had been deleted.
Anyone know how I can access the original thread because I'd love to see it now! Smile

FioFio · 24/05/2006 13:38

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted

frogs · 24/05/2006 13:40

Going to court can be outrageously expensive, even if you didn't bring the suit and you are clearly in the right.

A lot of the more agressive solicitors will bring cases on a no-win, no-fee basis, so there is no risk for their client but clearly means the solicitors will be giving it all they've got so they don't walk away with nothing. A common tactic is to prolong the case to the point where the other side can no longer sustain their legal fees (we're not even talking Court fees here, just the fees the accused party would have to pay to their own solicitor, which mount up very quickly). So you can end up having to pay a very large settlement on the basis of a completely specious accusation just to make the whole thing go away.

It happens, and people's lives are ruined by it. Much civil law, and the libel system in particular is not about right and wrong, it's about money and power. I do specialist consultancy in the legal field, and I won't touch libel case with a ten-foot pole, even though they pay much better than criminal cases, simply because of the amount of nastiness involved.

ruty · 24/05/2006 13:46

sounds awful frogs. makes me feel very angry on MN Towers' behalf. Can't quite believe GF is doing this, and for the reasons she has given. Absolutely ridiculous.

Jimjamskeepingoffvaxthreads · 24/05/2006 13:49

Oliveoil- An Foot Anstey partner is probably going to cost in the region of £250 an hour- ball park figure. I can't find the info on their website.The costs of going to court will be huge.

oliveoil · 24/05/2006 13:56

Sad and vvvvvvvvv Angry

do let everyone know if you need a fighting fund started MNHQ.

xx

ruty · 24/05/2006 13:59

if everyone on MN donated 20-50 quid - I don't know how many Mnetters there are - but i suppose i am being naive - that might still be a drop in the ocean..

Carmenere · 24/05/2006 14:18

Ok so the offensive posts are no longer in the public domain, I wonder what happens to them when they get pulled? I mean does GF have a print out of everything offensive ever posted about her? How is she going to prove that a significant number of people have seen those posts? One thing is for sure, a lot more people are reading these posts than ever read the allegedly offensive ones!

Enid · 24/05/2006 14:30

I really hope the lawyers are thrilled with the lives they have made for themselves.

If they were my children I would be ashamed of them.

Pruni · 24/05/2006 14:38

THe thing is, MN told us what it was and wasn't ok to post, but people still go ahead and push it into a very grey area. If Ms Ford wants to say her professional reputation has been sullied - this is aside from discussion of the methods contained in CLBB - then there are posts that haven't been deleted that make the posters' opinions clear. And there are still references to her that stray into defamation of character, I think.
I really think the best thing to do is to delete everything to do with her and hope that people stop pushing the limits. I hate the idea that we should even have to do that, when MN is clearly an oddly singled-out target, and of course this is all bound to backfire spectacularly on Ms Ford, but every time we discuss anyhting to do with her/this, people do get nasty and if that is what she hates, we give her ammunition almost constantly. So why not just not let it happen?

MNHQ
JustineMumsnet · 24/05/2006 14:40

Dear all,
Here's the latest from Ann Clough/Gina Ford:

"Dear Ms. Roberts,

Thank you for posting the message on the boards. As you and I both know, the legal action that Gina is taking against Mumsnet has nothing to do with the Ginababe issue, which was resolved a couple of years ago. However, what the response to the message has proved so far, is that some of your members have obviously no idea of the hundreds of vicious and libelous messages that have been posted over the last year.

This email does not require a response from you.

Ann clough"

We it feel it's only fair to offer Gina Ford a right of reply on Mumsnet, which is why we've put these messages up. As you might imagine we at Mumsnet HQ have a somewhat different take on events to Ann Clough's and we'd love to be completely transparent with you but on balance we feel it best not to go over the situation publically at this moment. Many thanks to all for the supportive and reasoned posts.
MNHQ

ruty · 24/05/2006 14:41

Yes you are right Pruni. But i think that is why it is impossible to hold MN Towers responsible - how on earth are they supposed to police a public forum with so many voices and so diverse?

ruty · 24/05/2006 14:43

Oh dear, oh dear - so sorry Justine. Angry

LadyTophamHatt · 24/05/2006 14:43

well, I'm just sat here scratching my head at the whole thing TBH.

tamum · 24/05/2006 14:43

Presumably MN have a record of the ginababe posting, even though it has been deleted. I don't think it will necessarily be up to Ann Clough what is and isn't admissable in court, now, will it? Very unwise move.....

MrsDoolittle · 24/05/2006 14:45

Thanks Justine.
I think you are dealing with this in the best way possible Smile Full marks to you

Blu · 24/05/2006 14:45

But viscious and libellous posts have been deleted - and at least as many MN posters have decried the nature of them. The 'report this post' button has been agdded to facilitate the speedy removal of any libellous posts. And MN posters have been observing the limits of critical comment, in recent months. Many many MN-ers have posted saying they respect, as an absolute principle, the difference between personal attack and an opinion on any methodology and theory. Since the beginning, MN-ers have taken issue with others who have crossed the line.

Hard to see what else MN can do Sad

meowmix · 24/05/2006 14:45

well if we don't know about all these libellous messages I don't see how anyone else does!

Justine - hope this resolves itself soon. Can't be fun for you guys.

Jessajam · 24/05/2006 14:46

ok have been lurking on this thread. Have never been involved in a GF discussion so didn't think could really comment but can I just say....

"some of your members have obviously no idea of the hundreds of vicious and libelous messages that have been posted over the last year."

hasn't she just kind of disproved her own case?!

Jessajam · 24/05/2006 14:47

xpost meowmix

Pruni · 24/05/2006 14:47

Well, one thing's for sure, the media fall-out of all this is going to be interesting.

Tinker · 24/05/2006 14:48

I'm scratching my head as well. Why, on earth, can AC just not spit it out? Which posts, exactly, are being objected to? And why only mumsnet?

FioFio · 24/05/2006 14:48

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted