Dear MNHQ, I didn't see all the problems kick off over poor Revjustabout...

ruty - the point about being a fake is that it is right to question these things, because she COULD have been a fake.

There is one thing I find slightly odd. And please don't shoot me, I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but.

According to someone on one of these threads (sorry I have no idea which) the rev does not currently have a congrigation of her own. But Justine just reiterated that she refers to mumsnet as her ministry.

I'll be honest I find that strange. Why does she not have a congrigation? How has it come about that rev has essentially taken on the members of a website, none of whom she has ever met or spoken to before she joined, and encouraged them into her worshipping threads? (I am somewhat baffled as to how one can reflect on the internet).

I don't care whether the rev is a rev or not. Equally I don't believe in the houding of someone in the way she has clearly been hounded.

But I do find the whole mumsnet being her ministry element a bit odd and a bit disturbing tbh. And it's something I wouldn't want to be associated with or want anyone I knew to be associated with, because people are far more easily led on the net than in rl.

I never thought she was the resident priestess anyway, just a good poster.

Hmm I have posted quite a few times in geeky....maybe I should stop before anyone gets the idea I'm an employee.

But she isn't a fake tortoiseshell. So i don't get your point.
I grew up in a vicarage. I know about vulnerable people. But they cold latch on to anyone here, anyone that took their fancy.

And i really don't agree that a vicar's words are endorsed by the CofE. There are many, many rebels within the church [not saying rev is one] There is room for robust dialogue and disagreement within the church.

I can see your point Justine.

But do you know anything about NewAmazingBeginning and she has posted some very worrying posts recently, the last being basically a suicide threat

sophable, since it was me who used the phrase 'tarred with the same brush' I will assume you were directing your questions at me and will answer.

"are you objecting loudly and vociferously on the threads on moldies about the rev, both that night and subsequently?"

No I have not posted loudly, vociferously or otherwise. I have not seen any such threads on moldies, maybe because they don't exist or maybe because I have not been on the PC much recently.

In any case, I have no real interest or opinion in the matter. I have read these threads on MN because they have sat high in active convos all day, I have posted once briefly (as you know since you practically quoted me) as I am pissed off that yet again this has turned into a 'them and us' style argument which truly baffles and saddens me.

"are you shouting, come on no narniagate, what are you doing, we are on moldies, forget what's happening on mn?"

No, because I rarely shout and I think you know that. I have however agreed with people who have indeed posted such a sentiment.

By the Goddess I can honestly say I have seen no mutterings about you whatsoever.

onager - yes they can. But if you are not a rev then your words are not endorsed by the CE, so they are your own words, not the words of an organisation .

If the man who came into our church on Sunday in great distress, shouting to God to 'end it now', weeping at the altar had been able to speak to a priest, although it is only 'counsel' and not 'professional advice' I imagine that would have been more help to him than anything a lay person could offer - he came into the church seeking help from a priest because he saw that as a closer link to God. Vulnerable people often do seek out a priest for help in that way. And it's not fair on justabout or MNHQ to expect that to happen online. Which is why lawyers/doctors will typically say 'make sure you see your own lawyer/doctor for advice on your own particular case.'

And IF justabout HAD been a fake, then vulnerable people COULD have been misled, and the deacon being impersonated could have been in serious trouble. SO worth checking out I think.

I do understand how the church works - I work for it!

okay, sorry to break up the party but I think we have a suicide risk here and we need to find out if anyone is near her

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/688288-I-well-and-truly-want-to-quit-I-need-to

Has anyone who is not also a Mouldie had any issues with rev's name/identity? Anyone shocked that she is a deacon/isn't a vicar?

I suspect not, but very happy to be proven wrong.

MNHQ suggesting a name-change is bizarre. It is not as if it makes the slightest bit of difference to who justabout is. She was and still is a deacon in RL. People on here know that and that will colour their views on discussions, in the same way that they wouldn't argue with Tiktok on the latest breastfeeding research. The fact that Tiktok isn't called Tiktokthebfc makes not the slightest bit of difference to how people treat her.

If it was clear that rev was doing something suspect, then that is different. The JF episode came to a head when it was clear that JF was a) clearly impersonating a RL barrister who could be identified from her posts; and b) was giving out wrong legal advice to people who had done the research as to who she was and thought that she was therefore genuinely a family law barrister. Certainly a) can't apply to rev as she is genuine. So has she done anything along the lines of b)? If she had I suspect that the evidence would have been paraded?

If the only people "concerned" about rev's title are also mouldies then it smells a bit.

oh i was just about to say you said it a lot more coherently pag.

Rev should keep her name.

I didn't see any offers of professional advice. Not to mention the fact that anyone can preach about anything. You don't have to be a Priest/ess.

at ruty saying what i said in about three words - and without confusing everyone

she doesn't offer professional advice. She offers her opinions and thoughts. I really think people don't understand the way the church works.
Thanks rhubs.

ummm.
But a member of the clergy is not a professional.
They can counsel but they cannot give professional advice. They are learned etc butthey are not paid to provide a service and their advice cannot be regarded as equally binding in any legal context.

A lawyer posts with caveats as such advice could be construed as given in their professional capacity and therefore attract legal liability.
A Rev has no such legal capacity.

It may make someone reading their posts give them more weight - which if the fact she is a rev is significant to you - is your choice

Or am I missing something.

arf at plausibility on religious grounds. Anyone can say 'yes you have to eat turnips 3 times a week if you want to go to heaven i am a vicar'. If anyone has seen the robust nature of the discussions on the religion topic they'll know that no one cares if you are a vicar or an effing bishop.

And so what if rev could offer some helpful advice to someone? She has posted unfailingly in a compassionate, funny and humane way.

It is protecting her as well - if she isn't posting as a rev then she can't be 'called' on her posts. If she posts as a rev, then it could be regarded as 'official' and she could easily get into trouble if she posted something not approved by the CE.

I agree with Rhu - we need a parnoid corner

And I am sure she would need permission from her Arch Deacon to start offering professional advice to any group outside her parish.

I think the deal is that she was giving herself plausibility on religious or emotional issues on those grounds.

Any lawyer who posts legal advice normally does so on the " I don't know the case but this is what i THINK".

I think she should keep her name

aaargh.