Why did the "Lisa Johnson One to Many" thread get deleted?

[PermanentIyExhaustedPigeon]

I've seen the deletion message but don't understand why the comments that broke talk guidelines couldn't have been deleted and the rest of the thread left to stand.

Lisa Johnson claims that she had it removed because she put pressure on MN to do so.

Can anyone from MNHQ clarify please?

I've had one. It's an email address I rarely use.

I've told MNHQ that I stand by my post and given my details.

It was "LJ then started to be rude about MNetters on her FB page"

That is not libellous. It's the simple truth.

As a general observation, I'd note that the women of MN don't tend to take too kindly to being censored - just look at the FWR board and the outcomes/impact they've had.

I decline to be bullied.

you and me both.

She doesn't seem to have much business acumen if her first thought is to try to use litigation, rather than using a thread like this as an opportunity to apologise and make herself look reasonable.

I have the greatest respect for businesses which can stand back, apologise, and turn negative feedback into a positive for them.

Indeed. The truth is an absolute defence.

I am currently saving as pdfs every single page of her website and how it all works as it exists today.

I am fucking furious. I'm not taking this.

Don't forget to screenshot her T&Cs. I suspect they may change quite soon.

Maybe we can have some clarity from users who have allegedly said they won’t buy the course on their reasons.

I am of the belief that posters had cited Lisa’s reactions and subsequent social media posts as the reason they had gone off the idea rather than the threads as a whole.

To the best of my knowledge Lisa Johnson herself came onto the first thread and stated that 60 clients had signed up to a course run by her as a result of the thread.

clarity on these points would be appreciated.

LJ did indeed claim that the thread had resulted in 60 people signing up to OTM after reading it...

It is my honest opinion that if a person makes themself the face of a brand, their actions will reflect on that brand.

ooh. Thank you. I've copied that too.
And thanks to those who've emailed me so far with the ss. Much appreciated. Could everyone email me everything they've got please. If I get several it will be much harder to claim they were edited in some way. Many thanks.

Emailed you the saved copy of the original thread.

A couple of sections of the Defamation Act 2013 that fellow MNers might like to peruse:

Section 2: Truth

Defamation Act 2013 (legislation.gov.uk)

Section 3: Honest Opinion

Defamation Act 2013 (legislation.gov.uk)

Even if something's not true, the libel claim only succeeds if they can show it did "serious harm" to their reputation.

60 people signed up due to the thread vs far fewer people saying they wouldn't sign up (3 or 4 maybe?) doesn't seem like serious harm?

So, here's the post of mine that LJ says is libellous. I posted as a response to someone asking what the original thread was about, for context.

It was a thread about a £2k course teaching people about passive income. I stand by this, it's factual.

It was...interesting. Well yes, it certainly was interesting. I stand by this too.

The course leader came along and accused everyone who didn't sing her praises of defamation. Yes, she did come along [to MN] and she did threaten a defamation case on her FB. That's factual. She came and posted on MN, I've got proof of that. She posted on her FB page about defamation and how to get the real names of anonymous posters so you could open a defamation claim. That's factual too. I've got proof of that.

She then went on her social media and made a massive fuss about MN being a "nasty gossip site" full of "lowlifes" and now says MNHQ deleted the thread due to her pressuring them to do so and claiming it as a personal victory. There are screenshots of her comments about MN. She did call it a nasty gossip site and she did call posters lowlifes. Again, factual. There's proof. She also posted about the thread being removed on her FB page, clearly implying it was removed due to her pressuring MN and because it was defamatory. She may have since deleted that post, but she did post it. Therefore, I stand by this. I can't be expected to know someone will delete a post they made. When I wrote that, she was making out that having the thread removed was in some way a victory for her.

It was bizarre. Reminded me of the Gina Ford fiasco that brought me to MN 20 years ago!! It was bizarre! And it did remind me of the Gina Ford fiasco. I think I'm allowed to say that one thing reminded me of another thing, aren't I? And I don't think calling something bizarre is libel. So yep, standing by that bit too.

Excellent. Thank you.

Hey @BeckyAMumsnet you can delete the post I made that I've been threatened about after all and I'll replace it with this one. And if they claim this is also libel, you can take it down and I'll put it a different way and keep doing that until there's a wording of my opinion that they can't legally object to.

She's a business coach of some sort is she?
she should know this. She should be teaching this.
It is my personal opinion that any company that sells business advice services should avoid making mistakes that could potentially damage their business.

It is my honest opinion that Lisa is more worried about people reading this thread in the future, than the two or three people who've said it changed their minds.

Quite. She says she got a shitload of business out of it.
She should be thanking mners for that. 60 new customers is a good outcome, right?

Does anyone know who the libel lawyers are sending this stuff?

The email I got doesn't say. It just says The complaint was made by a representative of Lisa Johnson about this post:

She's definitely hoping that this thread will be deleted.

On second thoughts I might have doxxed someone there, with their email address, so I've asked Mumnset to delete it.