Hayden and their latest case

[Amalfimamma]

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

I had never heard of a particular persons violent past, until they became obsessed with smearing GC women & ’Nuttersnet’ now however, because they have been so vile, I’ve read up on kiwi and am horrified by their chequered past. Any discomfort I would have in finding them in the ladies room is in no way because they are trans, but because of their historical behaviour, and ongoing referencing of golf clubs.....this is not transphobia, it is basic human safety.

Yes. It's a real shot in their own foot. I couldn't have cared less about them. I'm well clued up now though - thanks to their own actions and you cant stop people speaking to each other offline.

The style of the posts from a new user without history on other boards sounds like someone who is specifically interested in our Steph.

It might make for an interesting court case that might help set principles around deadnaming, in the way the mimmymum one did.

Can someone link me to the kiwi farms thread?

Can someone PM me the screenshot as well please? I was tucked up in bed with my cocoa at 1am!

HavelockVetinari

It’s not a good idea. You can easily search anything and anyone using their name/s and whichever site you’re interested in.

Could someone pm me the screenshot too please? Thanks.

Personal data is protected under GDPR and, although Mumsnet could potentially be made to hand it over to the police in the event of law breaking, surely they can't be forced to provide it to a private citizen.

Just read the docs properly. Maybe I am wrong. This is bizarre.

I doubt many of us give our actual real names and DOB, we aren’t required to

You don't need to have any name at all in the data MN retain, afaik, just an email.

If anyone reading this wonders why a parenting site with majority female membership might operate under terms which allow anonymity, they only need a nanoseconds thought of the fact that (a) women are routinely subjected to particularly vile abuse on the internet and (b) some such abusers show no qualms about targeting women via their children. Apart from FWR there are unfortunately many women in the process of escaping coercive controllers who absolutely need anonymity.

Another pretty please request for a PM of the screenshot - thanks!

QuilliamCakespeare

As per Michael from MN, the user did not contest nor ask MN to contest, the request, which they would contest if asked. Likely due to the fact MN have no real info on this user, as the user themselves posted earlier in this thread. It’s also likely that screenshots of the persons details freely given here, will appear on Twitter. These are details SH had to pay for

Is there an option to send screenshots via Pm on here? I can't find the add attachment

Honestly funny as it was, it was just a fake name very similar to a certain persons not worth all the fuss... probs gonna find it on twitter soon enough.

The clarification from Michael is worth reading and understanding. Again, if you want to be anonymous for any reason, don’t give any identifying details. Nobody can apply to the courts for user details for just any reason either, and expect to be given them. Clearly. As some may use for nefarious reasons. In this case, the request was not contested.

SH is continuing with the quest quite vigorously.

People using names other than on their birth certificate shocker.

What if alittlehelp is trans and doesn't want to be deadnamed?

They gave a real name and real address, cannot see how SH would be able to provide evidence of MN knowing it was false. The address given is under SH Companies House search, so is public info

They seriously have zero clue. MN have real, registered lawyers. Not ones with multiple dissolved companies and, by their own admission, not registered with a professional body ( as published in The Times ). They do not ask for our name, they ask for a valid email. That’s it. This person constantly claims to be issuing proceedings against people, under all their names. Like I’ve said earlier, if they have done so a number of times, a vexatious litigator can be prevented from initiating proceedings by providing details of their vexatious proceedings to the attorney general. I have seen this discussed elsewhere.

I read that tweet out to my DH. His immediate response was "a real lawyer would have said..." I didn't hear much else as I was laughing too much. (DH is one of those 'real lawyers').

This all seems like a self publicity exercise for Hayden. Even without the website operator defence there are plenty of other defences Mumsnet could rely on if she is claiming defamation.

Presumably she is hoping that, like Glinner, MN won't want to have to pay to defend so will concede - especially as they'd have little hope of getting them back from Steph.

The legal blogs that have run the exact same information (and didn't just host posts but actually wrote it up as a story and e-mailed it to users in their newsletter) have presumably been left alone as they have the expertise to defend themselves at no cost so can't be bullied in the same way.

I gather from last night's posting that the subject of the Court order used a proton email & vpn.

That's what DH set up for me when Emma Healey went wild posting mumsnetter's IP addresses on twitter.

Proton is a Swiss company, I think - they will never pass your details on to any third party. Not ever. (Would recommend).

a real lawyer would have said

I mean, exactly. There’s loads of lawyers on this board, oh and at MN. Absolute silliness from that person. I’m embarrassed for them

ZebrasAreBras

Yup, a few of us did that after that incident. I also recommend.