I think this thread is now dead. No one knows who anyone else is. Or is it just me that's confused?

I've got a real life situation underway where someone is misrepresenting themselves. I haven't got capacity for more confusion!

Because it doesn’t stack up.

I don’t believe that anyone on this thread is not well experienced enough to guard their personal identity. So the potential for getting personal information would be from someone who is very naive. And perhaps they should then not be on MN because it is known for begging scams etc.

But those people do benefit from the warnings and there has been more than one warning on this thread which is as it should be.

purple isn’t trying to ‘kill’ the story. If someone was attempting to kill the story, do you think that those of us who have indicated we support her would not see it? Maybe look at who is supporting and decide whether we are those who would miss such a blunt tactic.

The fact is, it would not have diminished the story to remove the identity of this poster, someone known to have a history on MN. I checked before it was changed. I saw a history there.

So it is not to kill the story or to even change it.

I think what is worse is that I saw yesterday and I don’t know when it was tweeted that Wings is discussing news of Douglas being a rapist being published soon. I am very concerned about that. Yes, Douglas should be exposed but not their victims. This should be handled with much care.

So, what benefit would Douglas be gaining from pretending to be their victim here?

I don’t doubt that Douglas has history on MN somewhere. It doesn’t take much. A long sleeper game. Have a profile that has a long history with single, often really short posts on very wide ranging topics (whatever is going on in active every few months or so). I would expect that would be the way to do it. I have reported trolls with that type of history and MN put up deletion messages that they were PBPs. Just playing the long game.

But to me, the logic doesn’t stack up that this poster in question is Douglas.

And casting doubt on her experience and legitimacy would be more Douglas’ style, in my opinion . Wouldn’t you all think?

How do you know this poster is genuine? Picklebee is master of deception at getting into womens online groups … just saying

I will be honest there have been a few posts on this thread that have seemed a bit fishy, and there has been a fairly successful attempt at derailing/ undermining the article and the author.

Useful warning, DoubleM.

Hard to credit people are that lousy, to be honest.

Beth, if you're reading? You're the dregs.

Sensible advice, DoubleMs.

Warning Please everyone in this discussion be aware that the male in question “Beth”’is a master at infiltrating groups of women with made up stories of abuse, getting personal information and using it to destroy tge group, humiliate women and get personal ID. So be warned - dont get into private messaging with anyone posting about “Beth” if you don’t personally know them in real life

I noticed that Wings recently tweeted indicating further info on "Beth" is coming

A journalist tweeting an article attacking that journalist, and pointing out the reasons why the article is unfair are not contextless.

I didn't write the Bella piece, but nothing I said was vague, nor contextless. I took you at face value, that you actually were interested in seeing examples of why people dislike Wings (who is utterly toxic)

Apologies for not specifying I was referring to his defence of Craig Murray, who was imprisoned for seeking to identify complainants of sexual assault despite court-mandated anonymity, or making it clear. (I could provide many other links to other defences -- or to the judgement noting in Murray's own words he was seeking to identify them despite the order.)

That said -- the article was not contextless there. In fact it specifically linked to contest: "The second piece of political context for the Wings phenomenon is the backlash against women’s rights. If his blog is now a focal point for the “trans debate” (sic), the bigotry and intolerance that pre-dates this is a hatred of feminist thinking – a worldview shared by Craig Murray (see for example Another Vicious Ugly-Souled Feminist – Thoughts on Feminism) and reiterated by the narrative of The Salmond Witches."

I can provide further context in the ground of this twitter thread by a different journalist outlining the issues.

But here's the point. None of the accusations against Campbell are vague. These are specific complaints, which are not particularly disputable. The context here is clear. (I feel his actions in this thread pretty much demonstrate what kind of a person he is, adding to the point.) You asked someone else why they wouldn't read something Wings wrote.

I offered an explanation. You might still want to enjoy his stuff despite his many clear flaws, toxicity, and repeated lack fo thought for survivors. But I'm not being vague here in the slightest.

What exact context do you need for the following [light-on-quotes list of contextless accusations]

oh ffs did you write the article? You aren't a credible narrator; vague but huffy and accusatory writing like this and like the article is the mark of someone who's trying to twist the facts to their narrative, and isn't good at it. And even if you were a credible narrator, I'm still not playing this stupid game.

What exact context do you need for the following?

He decided to attack a journalist who he disagreed with for one reason by bringing up the fact the journalist had written (with his daughter's consent) about his daughter being the victim of a sexual offence, saying he "weaponised his daughter's sexual assault", and throwing utterly bizarre sectarian abuse into it. (This at a time when he was spending a lot of time generally arguing that victims of sexual offences were making it up, shortly before defending those who sought to identify them despite court-mandated anonymity.)

Or was it the part where he chooses to host racist comments at his political opponents? Attacks a teenage girl for her appearance?

There's also the time he spent an exorbitant amount of resources attempting to sue a lesbian politician for condemning homophobic tone of a joke he made. (He lost.)

He's not at risk of schism from Glinner, because, well, the two of them have exceptionally similar MOs.

I think most of the women on here always keep in mind the pitfalls of anonymous accounts, Kali.

I can't see what anyone could/would send that would be helpful in any way.

If there is ever the chance of distressing a victim, and the action needed has no real impact - blurring a face/removing a name makes no real difference to this piece - then I would always err on the side of caution.

That's unrelated to posts on here, in fact, they really make no difference in this case.

It's always a bind. For many very good reasons, women don't want to share their stories. Yet that's often what is needed to bring abusers to account. There's no solution, only half-solutions. For example: anonymising accounts.

I'm not sure if I am missing something here... But Rev Campbell seems to be saying he will not send identifying details of an abuse victim to an unverified email... And then Purple is saying that her face is on the email (which should be enough verification), and if he won't send those details to the email, then at least send the details to another (possibly unverifiable) email that is her mother's?

Im just noticing something potentially a bit odd, that hasn't been commented on as of yet...

Im not sure what details would be sent, or even why. But at least Rev is syspicious enough that hopefully this survivors current details will not be sent to anyone.

........

I am also unclear what new information the article could include that would help identify her in her new life. Surely it is all information that her abuser ready knew.

Either way, as long as her current name and location are not shared with anyone, that seems to be the most important thing.

Please note I am not trying to deteact from the triggering and stress this would have caused, if all is as appears to be... I am just slightly perplexed.

I imagine Glinner and Campbell teamed up because the issue is more important than Campbell’s personal failings.

Why had Glinner done this with him?

I don’t think that article re Campbell is strong evidence for anything. There is one central accusation which is not contextualised so I’ve no idea how bad it really is. And there is an opinion I disapprove of, but so fucking what. I personally have loads of opinions which any right thinking person would disapprove of.

There doesn’t have to be a “schism” if people don’t feel compelled to perform the disapproval dance. I’d suggest not bothering with disapproval displays at the invitation of some random username with a half-baked link.

I don’t agree with RSC’s decision not to blur the name and photo on this article, and have said so already as have numerous others here, but it’s still a very important article. It’s not like TRAs denounce even rapists and murderers among their number, (unless the press are paying attention.) There’s no need to do denunciations and excommunications on request from anonymous shit stirrers.

Why had Glinner done this with him?

oh this feels like another schism brewing and I am sure that no one needs that in Feminsim

He's a misogynist who's repeatedly stated he's very antifeminist, has a known inability to admit he's wrong (see here) threw sectarian abuse at a journalist and is generally a very nasty man.

bellacaledonia.org.uk/2021/02/18/stuart-campbell-is-a-disgrace-that-has-soiled-our-movement/

Well, that'll learn me not to post without reading the full thread. And for the first time ever too. I'm so sorry you're so distressed by this, @thecaseofthepurplecushion. Rev, redact her details. You have actually named her in this thread too! Your article is worthless if you are ignoring the distressed requests of an abuse survivor.

Forgot to add: thank you to those writers, and to the OP for sharing. Chilling, awful stuff.

Yep. Much respect for both of those writers. I appreciate their bravery, honesty and persistence.

I really think that you should remove this woman's name and image, as a mark of respect, if nothing else.

'when I'm dragged out of the women's toilets because I just want to pee...'

The persecution complex is astonishing. Reminds me of the Harry Enfield character Angry Frank - and yes, I'm going to laugh:

👆

@RevStuartCampbell

@Glinner

I respect both Glinner and The Rev for their bravery to speak out. Both have been consistent ans both have been penalised for that. And I notice neither have commented on this thread recently or listened to purple.

in this instance they are taking women’s knowledge and expeience for their own sites ,while also dismissing women’s advice, requests and trauma. And what I notice from both those things is that these two men are making money from us while not listening. Not one woman has said that purple is unreasaonble. If this was AIBU she’d get 100%, which is rare

respect is like interest rates, it can go up and down. The Scottish government didn’t listen to women and look at what the consequences are. You’d think two men writing “ans the moral of the tale is…” might read their own work and accommodate purple’s reasonable request.

take purple’s details off the article, she asked you nicely, it’s the compassionate thing to do and you need womens co operation - I have corroborated information on PB and ACH that I have sat on for years and that you would wrestle each other for but there isn’t a fucking chance I’d give it you on what I’ve seen unfold on this thread.

If I’m not alone in that then you are potentially having a problem, you both need what women on here know and as this is anonymous you don’t know who you are pissing off.

cop on, lads, take this woman’s name off your work. It would be kind. It’s what a woman would do.

V Good points in your post stealthtunnock.

Hope you're ok purple. excellent advice from all above, victim support could be a useful place to turn to.