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

HemmingGate: To ban or not to ban, that is the question MNHQ

869 replies

CarpeVinum · 30/12/2013 17:46

Some of us would like to know if a certain politico will be banned, proper.

No rush.

We know you have a lot on your plate with ... stuff.

(I probably got two quotes mixed up in subject line. Don't panic! It's me not you. Am philistine. Italy is wasted on me. Not keen on art, prefer shopping.)

OP posts:
MadameDefarge · 03/01/2014 11:28

some local press, Express and Star

MadameDefarge · 03/01/2014 11:29

The Times

MadameDefarge · 03/01/2014 11:32

So

Guardian
Telegraph
Independent
Times

and faintly oddly, the Indiana State News

MurderOfGoths · 03/01/2014 11:33

Well done everyone, this really is impressive what you've achieved so far!

MadameDefarge · 03/01/2014 11:34

can anyone get past the times firewall? and link?

MadameDefarge · 03/01/2014 11:38

I see that the Birmingham Mail has completely pulled the piece. How very odd! I wonder why? Its not as if JH objects to the publicity....

MadameDefarge · 03/01/2014 11:39

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-25579613

desertgirl · 03/01/2014 11:56

Times article:

MP John Hemming banned from Mumsnet for posting while drunk

A Liberal Democrat MP has been banned from commenting on the parenting website Mumsnet after allegedly making posts while drunk.
John Hemming, 53, MP for Birmingham, Yardley, was banned after he revealed the identity of a pregnant Italian woman who had her baby taken away by Essex County Council.

Mr Hemming admitted being “not sober” when he breached an Italian court order by posting documents that revealed the names of the woman and her children.

“Although I do read Italian, I do not read it that well and I didn’t realise there was an Italian court order in place,” he said.

“As soon as I realised my error, I contacted Mumsnet and asked them to take the posts down.”

Mumsnet banned him for breaching its rules, after he also named anonymous users by posting links to Twitter pages which contained their names.

Mr Hemming has said that he “is not that bothered” by the ban and has joked that he is “now indeed on the naughty step at Mumsnet”.
He made a post on his blog on December 30 in which he publicised the statement he received from Mumsnet.

It said: “Hi, John. We’re getting in touch as we’ve received a couple of reports about your posts on the ‘child taken from the womb’ thread. It is against our talk guidelines to post information which would ‘out’ a poster, as a couple of your posts on here have done due to your posts containing links to posters personal twitter accounts which give their real names. We’ve had to suspend your account until you get in touch.”

Mr Hemming admitted to being “not sober” while posting, and in an exchange with one user he said: “I am not sober, but I am right.”
He said: “My eight-year-old daughter is thrilled I am on the naughty step and if she’s happy, I am happy.

“I am still posting on other forums because I believe that is the way to engage with people and I am also the only MP to take part in Mumsnet discussions using my real name.”

1 comment, from John Hemming:

(comment made 24 minutes ago, article updated 1 minute ago, so not entirely clear if changes have been made)

caroldecker · 03/01/2014 11:59

it's in the times today here

MadameDefarge · 03/01/2014 11:59

ooh, John not happy? Shame!

BoreOfWhabylon · 03/01/2014 12:00

Is anyone able to comment on the Times article to properly 'clarify the errors'?

BeyondTheLimitsOfAcceptability · 03/01/2014 12:01

Would love to know what JH thinks is wrong with it. Desert, prob best to report that post yourself before anyone else does it, but thanks for sharing

MadameDefarge · 03/01/2014 12:01

I can't see any errors...hm.

desertgirl · 03/01/2014 12:01

well, apparently, but I can't see how he can claim any of it is either wrong or defamatory, unless something has been taken out - it is pretty factual except that there was no issue with him outing the mother, only the children.

MadameDefarge · 03/01/2014 12:02

Is this where he starts to get litigious? When he can't control the story?

Maryz · 03/01/2014 12:02

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MurderOfGoths · 03/01/2014 12:03

There's good old John and his loose grasp of facts again. At least we know it works both ways, not only does he claim things he's made up are facts, but also that things that are fact are made up. Think he'd argue up was down and black was white.

Maryz · 03/01/2014 12:03

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

desertgirl · 03/01/2014 12:05

You are probably right, beyond, in that one is not supposed to post Times content, but not because of it being defamatory, I am quite comfortable that it isn't.

MadameDefarge · 03/01/2014 12:05

yes, that comes under 'fair usage'

BeyondTheLimitsOfAcceptability · 03/01/2014 12:08

Yes yes, that is what I meant. Bullshit is it defamatory - its quoted from his own blog!!

MadameDefarge · 03/01/2014 12:10

the only error I can see is that the document referred to was an actual confidential court document, which would only make him look worse if corrected....

MadameDefarge · 03/01/2014 12:11

And that he also breached a UK court order...

CarpeVinum · 03/01/2014 12:13

Good job we can prove it.

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread