The case of Mumsnet vs Gina Ford, M’lud. A bit of a spat in the world of Contented Babies this week, after übernanny Ford took umbrage at uncomplimentary postings on a volunteer run community site for mums. Her lawyers have demanded 5 conditions of Mumsnet, two of which seem reasonable, and two slightly over the top (not to mention 2 of the seeming slightly contradictory), but the mums have agreed to four, at no little hassle to them. It’s the fifth one, Mumsnet paying damages, that is causing the problems, what with them having no money and all. Mumsnet have taken the rather unusual step of actively asking members to refrain from discussing Gina Ford or her methods – something which they themselves describe as being like asking a football forum to avoid talking about Man United.

Now Ms Ford’s book has some very good advice (we bought a blackout blind on the strength of her recommendation – which has definitely helped us get a bit more sleep – worth the book price alone!), but as a whole system it doesn’t suit everyone – probably not the vast majority by the discussions I’ve had with other parents. Yet we all bought TCBG on the dust-jacket promise of a catch-all system for baby-management. So her business model is built a bit like Mr Colman’s (of the mustard fame) in that most of her product doesn’t get used. As such she’s probably a bit more vulnerable to a frank internet discussion than other more conventional baby manuals (my Mrs prefers the reassuring “What to Expect” series, which sets out to answer pretty much every conceivable question, such as “My baby has turned green”, with a comforting “Don’t worry” answer, and I favour Miriam Stoppard’s guide, with its bloke-friendly Haynes Manual style diagrams of *exactly* how to fold a nappy). Even so if you choose to live in a glass house, you can’t really sue stones out of existance.

Similar tales recently with diet guru Gillian McKeith – the country’s premier poo-ologist, who even merits her own tag in the Guardian’s excellent ‘Bad Science‘ column. McKeith has been reaching for the writ to censor a (rather funny) web animation by the terrible two of flash photomontage, Doghorse and Eclectech. Objecting to the suggestion that her degree from a correspondence college may not be the most kosher on the block, McKeith’s lawyers were in touch.

Has this set a pattern for militant popular punditry? Woe betide the next person to criticise Esther Rantzen’s ads for a no-win-no-fee claims farm or the patchy dress sense of Trinny and Suzannah. Will Supernanny sue children who don’t go to bed on time? Anything that would shut down an exposé about Laurence Llewellyn-Bowen owning a garden gnome (which I take pains to point out that he doesn’t so far as I know), can’t be good for our national sense of humour.