Update on the Gina Ford legal situation

[JustineMumsnet]

Hello all,
Some of you may have seen a Gina Ford interview in the Mail on Sunday today, in which she refers to the Mumsnet legal situation, so we thought it was only right to update you as to where we are.

We are due to go to mediation on March 7th. Our position with regard to this hasn't changed - since very early on in the dispute we have suggested mediation as a sensible way forward and so we are pleased to be meeting with Ms Ford and her lawyers on March 7th.

In the meantime GF has issued a claim form, which means that the court clock is now running and we have to put in our defence within 28 days.

Obviously, as Ms Ford has made clear by this action and by her statements in the Mail on Sunday if mediation fails, she intends to sue.

We're sorry that we are still having to ask you not to discuss Gina Ford or her methods but given the potential for something that may be used against Mumsnet to slip through, this probably remains the safest course of action.

We will, of course, keep you fully updated.

Thanks for all your support.
Mumsnet HQ

I think if mumsnet were sued (and there is a limited company called that but it doesn't seem to be mentioned on the site - another issue) but not the people who made the comments, in lots of cases those people would be brought into the case too and have to pay the damages particularly as the terms of the site say do not make defamatory comments.

Tamum, it was mentioned in the MOS that MN members hide behind silly nicknames. I was just saying that I thought that was normal for an internet forum!

But they always get mp's quote out of context which does bug me.

Oh, I missed that Fusby, sorry!

Yes, that is really irritating, isn't it Tinker- it completely changes the whole sense of the thing.

I have to say, I cannot see how on earth MP's quote can be misconstrued as serious, it is so obviously a sarcastic remark!!! It always makes me question whether the person quoting MP has any grip on reality whatsoever.... It's such a silly remark to be quoted with a straight face, it sounds utterly ridiculous when anyone tries to make it to be an outrageous accusation, infact so does the quiestionable hygiene one tbh!!!!

I think they're just rehashing what they've read elsewhere - doubt they've bothered to research the quote properly.

How come Al Fayed can get away with calling Prince Philip a Nazi (on Jeremy Vine) but we cant make jesting remarks about someone?

Lets face it, theres nothing to stop anyone registering on here then fighting their own corner, is there?

she used to be on here iirc

Lots of people libelled choose not to sue or decide to pick one of 1000 people they might choose to sue. You can be as unfair in you victim choice as you like. Often by suing you just ensure more people hear about the libel anyway so it's frequently better just to let it lie anyway. I suppose someone will have picked out the most clearly libellous comments (if there are any at all) and listed them in a draft claim. If mument is just like an AOL/ISL and not liable that doesn't have to be the end of it. The individuals who posted coul technically be sued just as the music companies sometimes do choose to sue individuals who download without permission - they then publicise them as a warning to others, there was a university lecturer and various others too.

I don't believe there has been any libel though, people are entitled to have opinions and make fair comments. She won't win.

May well be right, even if the argument that a bulletin board is not a publisher doesn't win. If ther eis no libel (the comments are true) or other exceptions (I am not a libel lawyer so I don't know what is what on that). Mediation is about tactics, money and legal fees and bluff. You have to make sure good experienced negotiators go into it. I have had people not even prepared to stand in the same room as each other still settle. Good mediators are good at getting settlements. Most mediations are of no interest to anyone and you wouldn't get the newspapers interested in a month of Sundays so there is not any element of whether someone might carry on on either side because of publicity value. I had one case where it was important to the companies that they could say they had sued, however. Didn't matter to either side actually who won as long as they could get their press releases worded right and that affected their goodwill and shares value.

The definition of defamation is the lowering of a person's good name or reputation. I think it would be very hard to prove that someone's reputation has been damaged by the comments that were made.

Tbh, she has damaged her own reputation far more by the stance she has taken over this issue. Any sensible person would have simply approached the website asking them to remove the allegedly libellous statements and, when that was done promptly (as it was here), consider it an end to the matter. To pursue it to the nth degree shows an obsession and a character which is quite capable of being its own worst enemy.

She would have to show that her reputation has been damaged by the comments made. And there is always the "public interest" defence .

hmm, well we don't know that do we ll? There was a thread, long ago, I expect that would be brought up.

You're thinking along the right lines littlelapin.

I think someone might have posted long ago on a thread about nothing.

Xenia, your post here:

By Xenia on Sat 03-Mar-07 14:20:46
I think if mumsnet were sued (and there is a limited company called that but it doesn't seem to be mentioned on the site - another issue) but not the people who made the comments, in lots of cases those people would be brought into the case too and have to pay the damages particularly as the terms of the site say do not make defamatory comments.

Do you mean that MP et al could also be sued?

If so, is it worth noting that there was a thread the other day that made her easily identifiable in RL? Or would that be something they could find out easily anyway?

yes any individualscan be sued

lm, you can tack individuals. It is done all the time. It's hard to do if they nip into an internet cafe in Bali to do it but if they're at home with a computer with an IP address or whatever it is you can tack back and companies regularly get orders requiring sites like mnet to disclose the individuals' details. Often it has a good deterrent effect if you sue a good few individuals. Stops the others who might over step the mark. It would be pointless though in most cases as the individuals have no money and it woudl be the worst PR there could be - "mumsnet brings libellously posting mummies into litigation" but technically and legally possible. If you ran a site which didn't make much money and you might lose your house and might have to close it down and your options were doing that or bringing in a few libellously posting people who had aassets houses into the case so they not you lost your house which would you put first - your own children or a stranger? I'm just playing devil's advocate here. Most cases settle at mediation and that's it.

Just popping over from BMC to wish you the best luck for March 7th. Not that you'll need it - surely common sense and justice will prevail

We're all behind you over on BMC - there but for the Grace of God 'n' all that

Will put money into pot too if it's needed - let me know!

Sab x