Hayden and their latest case

[Amalfimamma]

So this is the latest message to intimidate after their idea to compile a list of gc women

So Haydon has spent £255 trying to get MNHQ to send them their name, address and email address?😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Funking bonkers behaviour.

So Haydon has spent £255 trying to get MNHQ to send them their name, address and email address?

No, they have spent £255 to send a threatening message to all women.

Shame MN deleted that post. Was very informative

Some of us took screenshots

And maybe those watching this thread -Steph, Harrop, Joss and friends - can enlighten us as to watch Liam Neeson like action they plan to unleash with this new expensive bit of information. Get a real lawyer to send a letter to an anonymous email address? Tell their twitter followers they “won”? A triumph over the evils of posting factual information freely available on the internet to anyone able to search a name? I’m really fascinated to know what they think they’ve accomplished.

Yes, I will be interested to see how they spin the massive self own

I'm not sure I want someone to publicly share that now or on Thursday when they get the official notification. It is going to be highly amusing and hard to spin that they have 'won' anything.

No, they have spent £255 to send a threatening message to all women..

I understand that was their intention but it hasn’t worked because we aren’t stupid.

Some of us took screenshots

Yes, I couldn't sleep so was reading the thread.

Why did MN delete it? It didn’t break guidelines.

I'm sure it will find its way to who requested it at some point. Will see what Thursday brings, spin wise

No, they have spent £255 to send a threatening message to all women.

I agree with this. And as an additional benefit to make MN think "what a pain in the arse all this gender critical discussion is, we'll have a quieter life if we don't permit it". Which is why I think posting in a way so as not to inflame the situation with this particular individual is the way to go.

Morning all. This is quite a fast moving issue - but here's an update to outline our general approach and processes when faced with a defamation complaint.

Firstly, as a rule, if one of our users doesn't want to contest a court order they can ask us to contest it for them. We're more than happy to do this, especially if there are fears for privacy, doxxing etc.

Here is an overview of our process when we receive a complaint:

If a user on Mumsnet is accused of making a defamatory post, we follow the Defamation Act 2013, in particular section 5

This is absolutely standard. We let the user know about the complaint and the user can then choose to let their post stand or not. If they want to stand by it, by law they have to provide us with their details.
They can choose whether these details are passed to the complainant or not. If they choose not to pass on their details, then the complainant can get a court order to obtain the details (as we note in the Exceptional Circumstances section of our privacy policy.

That’s where we are in this process, we let the user know about the court order and waited to receive the court documents.

Again - the general rule is that a user can contest a court order - or they can ask us to contest it for them.

On a side note... we've made some deletions in this thread - please do try to keep contributions within the letter and spirit of our Talk guidelines.

Jessica I can only assume because it's now some kind of legal matter? I'm not sure who would have reported it and SH has so far made no mention of it on Twitter.

Maybe "wasn't in the spirit", it was super goady to the litigious one.

Summary was: the person SH is hunting used a vpn, and a throw away email, so SH has wasted their cash.

Sorry crossed with HQ

Thanks @MichaelMumsnet

So there isn't a way to compel MN handing over a user's details without their knowledge? It would only happen if the user didn't want posts deleted and was prepared to go to court over it?

Ie if it ever got to the court order stage, it would only be because the user wanted it to?

Sounds like it ewe

That orginal comment still stands on the Harrop 4th thread. I'm guessing the user is standing by what they said and provided details that aren't just Biggus Dickus, or something.

Interesting

I think Michael has made it pretty clear. Neither the user or MN contested, meaning they were prepared to both let the comment stand and hand over their details, freely shared here anyway, if there is a court order to do so.
MN would contest it if asked- so that’s something isn’t it.

So really, the user was not worried about handing over the details, they just made SH pay for them. Kinda funny really.

•If they want to stand by it, by law they have to provide us with their details.*

Presuming then, that the user has had to provide MN with their actual details and not a fake email? Unless they are claiming their name is Minnie Mouse of Main Street USA?

Carowiththegoodhair no, only the details MN hold on them. I doubt many of us give our actual real names and DOB, we aren’t required to

Presuming then, that the user has had to provide MN with their actual details and not a fake email? Unless they are claiming their name is Minnie Mouse of Main Street USA?

Reading the Section 5 information that Michael links to above it sounds as if MN would be required to asked the poster for their name and postal address so the complainant can deal with them directly. However, it does not saying anything about MN being required to authenticate the veracity of the details provided. I am not a self-identified lawyer though.

Shame MN deleted that post. Was very informative

Could someone post or PM me the gist, pretty please? I always miss the good stuff!

MN aren’t obliged by the law to investigate and validate who their users are. They can only provide details given to them.