Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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:
tamum · 24/05/2006 14:59

I agree with Jimjams, Tinker, I think ginababe's identity was made very clear from on high :)

Fio, well done!!! :) :) :)

Marina · 24/05/2006 14:59

I've not seen them either JJ.
Agree with Pruni and tamum. This is all most odd. Fully understand why Justine has to be less than transparent though.

Jimjamskeepingoffvaxthreads · 24/05/2006 14:59

I'm sure her legal advice is very good oliveoil- Foot Anstey are a decent firm. I just can't understand why shes doing it.

tamum · 24/05/2006 15:03

I can't seriously imagine that questioning whether her legal advice is sound can possibly make things worse, can it? Are they going to sue MN on their own behalf too? Doubt it...

oliveoil · 24/05/2006 15:04

well they are reading every post on here, so it would wind them up at the very least

bundle · 24/05/2006 15:04

wooooo-hoooooo to Fio - well done, let's set up that Arty Farty thread Smile you can be my role model

tinker.....good question. if tv company broadcast a libel and their transmitter was faulty (so no one watching) imo they would still have a case for slander, in that the camera operator would have heard it Wink

ruty · 24/05/2006 15:05

sorry if i said your explanation was nonsensical AC, what I meant was I couldn't understand it. We are all just feeling a bit defensive on MN's behalf at the moment, because it has been a lifeline for so many of us. For example, there have been people that I've met on Mumsnet who have been instrumental in getting my son back to full health, and I don't think i could have got him the specialized medical advice he needed without them. So you see, MN is critically important for mothers. If people said defamatory things about GF then that was ill advised, but MN has done everything in their power to stop that happening. I really think a legal battle will be the thing that damages GF's reputation, not a bunch of mums on the internet - please think again.

crunchie · 24/05/2006 15:06

Ok so it isn't about the Ginababe incident, it's about the defamatory comments. That I understand - to a point. I think MNHQ made it very clear what we could and couldn't post, and explained that it wouldn't go further if we controlled ourselves.

However Ann Cloghs messages are confusing me. Her post a few weeks ago did not seem to be about the nasty personal attacks, it seemed to suggest GF didn't like swearing. Now she is saying that GF doesn't mind discussion, but MNHQ didn't make things clear enough that they would not sue IF the nasty comments stopped AND if a settlement was paid.

The original post '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 if I am reading this right, MN did make it clear we must stop making comments, but because they didn't pay a 'settlement' GF is now going to court.

Personally I understood the original complaint about the personal comments, what I didn't understand was Ann Cloughs post. All I can think is that she must have directed us to the wrong thread tbh and she meant to direct us to another personal GF thread.

Anyway I am sorry that MN is going through this, but it is rather funny when you think about it. Someone somewhere MUST have a Private Eye contact

Jimjamskeepingoffvaxthreads · 24/05/2006 15:07

OliveOil if her lawyers are reading every post it will be consting her a fortune. I think AC is employed by Gina's website.

arfy · 24/05/2006 15:07

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

Well I've been on here pretty much every day for the last year and read masses of threads and I don't think this is true at all TBH. All most odd, most odd indeed. Poor MNHQ.

Marina · 24/05/2006 15:08

The firm in question does also do work with SANDS and with parents in medical negligence cases, further to Jimjams' remarks

tamum · 24/05/2006 15:09

Yes, she said that Jimjams, didn't she- she had CLB website or something in her sign-off.

oliveoil · 24/05/2006 15:10

yes, can't imagine a £250 an hr brief going 'hmmmmmm' over MN somehow.

Anyway, must be off to do some work of my own.

Jimjamskeepingoffvaxthreads · 24/05/2006 15:11

Yes, although I looked on the CLB website and couldn't see her mentioned. If someone has a spare 40 quid they could join and find out.

tamum · 24/05/2006 15:11

That cost about £2.50 just to read your last post OO :o

Mascaraohara · 24/05/2006 15:12

Surely if she's not a lawyer and they really are planning to take MN to court she wouldn't have the authority to make statements like she has been in case she said anything that might weaken their case?!?!?

Think the whole thing is bizarre tbh. She must have too much time on her hands.. maybe she shold take a leaf out of antheas book and learn how to fold towels properly.

Tinker · 24/05/2006 15:13

Interesting point mo'h.

arfy · 24/05/2006 15:14

I've been wondering that MO'H

zippitippitoes · 24/05/2006 15:15

The best course of action might be to cease speculating.

Jimjamskeepingoffvaxthreads · 24/05/2006 15:19

Jeremy Paxman's wife is called Elizabeth Ann Clough! Funny the things you learn in life.....

arfy · 24/05/2006 15:20

It probably is zippi

It just sticks in my craw though - I feel gagged. And as though we're being goaded somewhat. Think I had better stay off these threads for a while.

FioFio · 24/05/2006 15:22

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted

oliveoil · 24/05/2006 15:26

I think we should all studiously ignore threads on GF tbh

or just put parp

Jimjamskeepingoffvaxthreads · 24/05/2006 15:29

I think that's a good idea oliveoil

morningpaper · 24/05/2006 15:33

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

???????????????

I don't get it. "Vicious and libelous" (sic. - really I think that the GF camp should at least find out how this is spelt at this stage) - I honestly have no idea what this refers to. Does anyone else know? Am I missing something?

I've seen quite a lot of vicious and libellous posts on other websites though - the Guardian chatboards in particular...