Hayden and their latest case

[Amalfimamma]

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

Yes - it's an obsession. Very sad little lives. Still, given them something else to talk about other than Caroline, I suppose. I still can't get over the fact that haddock had tweeted about Caroline over 40 times in a few days. It's not a normal way for people to spend their time.

Thanks Steph doll! Nice timely reminder to do a quick online safety check.

I honestly never expected to find myself sitting around thinking "you know, we could really learn something from kiwifarms"

What a time to be alive.

Jesus wept, how much time do they have on their hands?

So this will be very disappointing if all that's saved is an email address. Which is very likely. They seem to be having the celebration a bit soon. I've just read a tweet saying mumsnet has to have full data "by law" which is both a bit incomprehensible and a bit silly.

mumsnet has to have full data "by law"

More than a little silly, they def don’t need to and they def don’t ask for it.

This is interesting, I don't know if things have changed since?

www.theregister.co.uk/2017/01/30/mumsnet_plastic_surgeon_court_order_user_id_messages/

Ha ha ha ha ha... nice one Steph. Nope, they don't have to have it by law, nor do they actually have it (speaking for my own personal situation).

there's a lot of rage coming through certain channels.
I guess the torrent of Times articles and the recent banning from Mumsnet might be behind the incandescent rage.

My reading of the link needs has posted is that if the offending poster doesn't reveal their details then MNHQ is obliged to delete the offending posts. Which as far as I can tell have already been deleted.

Meanwhile on twitter people have noticed that the anonymous Puppet Boy account, with the vile rap song abusing Caroline, was followed by one person......Adrian Harrop.
Steph you can deflect all you like but we all have eyes.

Same here Errol. If someone threatens to sue MN for something a poster has put up, MN then contact the poster with a choice: the post stays up, but you must give us your real ID so that the litigant can pursue you instead of us, or we delete everything.

It's because of this grey area between being a mere carrier of messages (like a telecomms company) and being a publisher (like a newspaper).

Kiwi farms may be beyond SH's reach because it's not British, I suppose. If it's American, their laws re freedom of speech etc would presumably render them pretty much impervious to a pissed off brit.

Considering the response the NZ police got from Null 🥝 after asking for information in the wake of the dreadful NZ mass shooting I think we can be assured that any attempt to intimidate or otherwise apply pressure would result in an enormously entertaining put down.

Threats and attempts to silence women still doesn't change facts, no matter how much it costs or trouble it causes. We don't make the rules, it just 'is', like it or not.

It's just as much about SH's own PR as it is about trying to silence MN'ers. Like Harrop, McKinnon and co, SH needs to present self as some sort of swashbuckling internet legal beagle. It's very lame. So much of this is about ego.

It must be exhausting trying to hold back the tide, Stephanie.

So SH is making a lot of fuss to get some posts deleted, on an issue SH would rather we forgot about but which her pal AH keeps jogging our memories about? Is that about the size of it?

I see one of Hayden's more naive TW followers saying 'Good luck, I hope you are able to stop at least the user named in the order.'

The user named in the order has only 3 existing posts and hasn't been on here in months. I'm a regular here and I've never heard of them. Whatever happens, it won't 'stop the user named in the order ', who seems to have already stopped.

The problem for those who seek so much attention is that they can find they are very quietly observed closely by others. Sometimes they may be better advised to reduce their profile.

I fear AHs frequent references such a 'hole in one' may turn out to be more of an albatross.

I have heard back from MNHQ, they will be posting on this thread as soon as they can.

If someone threatens to sue MN for something a poster has put up, MN then contact the poster with a choice: the post stays up, but you must give us your real ID so that the litigant can pursue you instead of us, or we delete everything.

Yes I remember this happening when samaritan's purse went after some posters here.

I can still see three posts from this poster, two with the (now dead?) link to the PDF.

For this to have reached a court order stage I think the poster must have already refused permission for MN to either delete the posts or to pass on her details.

It's weird because MNHQ delete posts all the time anyway, sometimes for quite flimsy reasons. Maybe they're not allowed to once a notice of complaint has been received unless they strictly follow the schedule?

It's funny because all sorts of people must be wondering what this is about, searching the poster's name and reading the posts. Even with the dead PDF link they're quite informative.

Thanks ItsAll It will be interesting to hear their comments.

Mumsnet doesn't have any of that info asked for on the Court Order, except the email address I signed up on - which cannot be traced to me. Not because I'm up to anything illegal (LOL) but because of Jeff the Hacker sending armed police squads over to Justine & a couple of Mumsnetters. I went anonymous after that. I've completely re-registered twice since then too.

"If someone threatens to sue MN for something a poster has put up, MN then contact the poster with a choice: the post stays up, but you must give us your real ID so that the litigant can pursue you instead of us, or we delete everything."

I remember something similar happening on the education board with a school threatening legal action against posters who were then given that choice. To remain anonymous they had to delete the posts so the thread ended up like swiss cheese.

Ahh Steph trying to scare people out of daring to disagree with Steph. How cute.

And Harrop still thinking he is hilarious with his golf 'jokes', showing exactly what kind of person he is.

Typical male attitude showing really.

I knew they'd mentioned it on that other thread.

I don't really get how an appeals court report (I believe a public document) listing prior convictions is deformation?

Anyway that user was smart enough to hunt it down, I doubt would have used their real name. I wonder if they used a vpn thingy.

I would pay for mumnet to have been forced to hand over details for a:

Mx Dick Wipe
Ha Ha road
Bell End

I for one would love to use my real name when discussing these issues, but I've seen what they do to people. Look at the insanity that's happening to Caro. Shudder.