Court victory for 'Queen of routine' over online attacks

DUBBED "the Queen of routine", her books on childcare advocating a strict regime for babies have, her fans claim, led to quieter nights for many parents.

But while Gina Ford, the Scottish childcare author, may be able to calm unruly tots, she was unable to still a torrent of abuse - some of it personal - which erupted on the UK website Mumsnet.

Ms Ford - author of the million-selling The Contented Little Baby Book, called in her lawyers earlier this year to stop what she called "relentless personal attacks" on the website's message boards.

In what was described as a significant case for internet publishing, Mumsnet yesterday settled out of court, apologising to Ms Ford and agreeing to pay some of her legal costs. The website also said it would no longer tolerate personal attacks in its popular chatrooms.

A former maternity nurse, Ms Ford was incensed by postings she said were "vile and disgusting".

One writer claimed Ms Ford metaphorically "straps babies to rockets and fires them into south Lebanon". Another, according to a published letter from her lawyers, suggested the author was "cruel and uncaring" because she advised a mother to let a five-month-old baby cry for three hours. A further posting, the childcare author's lawyers said, "bore the defamatory meaning that our client has unhygienic personal habits".

Ms Ford, 53, advocates a strict routine in the first few months of a baby's life - a practice, she says, which will pay dividends for exhausted parents later on.

One technique, "controlled crying", suggests parents should not intervene every time a baby cries at night and instead let babies cry themselves to sleep.

The author, who does not have children, advocates routines which are often minute in their detail. While Ms Ford's methods can provoke controversy, other parents are evangelical about their effectiveness.

Mumsnet said it would allow members to discuss Ms Ford's methods as long as those discussions were "civil and fair".

The website said in a statement: "Mumsnet will not tolerate personal attacks on [Mrs Ford]. Mumsnet urges all its members to remain civil and fair towards Gina Ford."

The parenting website was set up in 2000 by three women who met in ante-natal classes in 1998.

While the website has now settled its long-running legal dispute, the case raises fresh issues over the responsibilities of online publishers.

Justine Roberts, co-founder of Mumsnet, said that no-one involved in running the website believed comments comparing Ms Ford to a terrorist "could possibly be taken seriously".

Ms Roberts, a 39-year-old mother-of-three, also argued it was near impossible to monitor all the posts on the website, which run to as many as 70,000 a day. Around 250,000 mothers visit the site every month.

Lawyers for Ms Ford welcomed the settlement and insisted their client had only ever wanted an apology for postings on the website.

While the terms of the out-of-court deal are secret, they are thought to include a five-figure sum in payment to the author.

However, Ms Ford is still left to shoulder some of a legal bill, expected to run into six figures.

Mark Stephens, lawyer for Mumsnet.com said the argument that the website was responsible for the postings by users was similar to suggesting that BT was responsible for any defamatory comments made on its telephone networks.

He added: "There is serious concern that internet service providers and posts like Mumsnet can be held liable for the words that are published on them. People can comment and give their own views and reasonable readers can make up their own minds."

LIBEL LAW IN CYBERSPACE

INTERNET service providers - the companies that host websites - are not regarded as publishers in the same way that, for example, a newspaper is, and there is legal acceptance they cannot control material posted by third parties.

Big websites operate a policy called "notice and take down". This means that they are not prosecuted for potentially libellous postings if, once they are made aware of it, the material is quickly removed from the site. The defence of websites is weakened if they allow discussions containing damaging remarks - for example in a chat forum - to continue for a prolonged period. The Internet Service Providers Association, the UK's trade body, has called on the government to "further clarify the rights of service providers".