Absolutely NO to Spero being banned, and I haven't seen any of her posts that are rude and inflammatory - as she says there have been many personal insults made to her by people who resort to such measures when they are in a hole and won't stop digging. Spero's responses to insults are always measured - indeed she seems impervious to insults, often using humour (or if she's really frustrated) sarcasm, but NO never rude or inflammatory - I will await with interest for evidence from MNHQ of their allegations.
The thread has taken many twists and turns and Spero's OP was simply that she was annoyed at being told she was not allowed to take a picture of her daughter who was performing in a drama festival based on specific legislation - one Act in particular caused her concern because she didn't think such an Act existed but as she delved deeper she discovered that it did exist BUT it only related to the taking of indecent photographs and so was irrelevant as she wanted to take a photo of her fully clothed daughter and no other children.
Nothing more nothing less
Competent lawyers need precise minds and need to pay attention to detail and ensure that they have a full working knowledge of the legislation related to the specialist area of law. Spero is an experienced and competent family lawyer and so it's perfectly understandable why she was irked at legislation being quoted that was irrelevant. It was "sloppy" on the part of the organisers, quoting several Acts, none of which were relevant in the sense that the taking of photographs of children was in any way illegal - hence the organisers had no right to prevent Spero or indeed* any other person taking photographs of their* children - it demonstrates that the organisers don't really understand child protection issues, and are muddled about this important issue. Spero has consistently pointed this out.
Many posters have failed to understand the issue and have tried to make it far more complicated than necessary and to say the "waters have got muddied is something of an understatement" Accusations have been made that Spero doesn't understand or care about child protection issues, (so insulting) she's "throwing her weight about as a lawyer" (or words to that effect), that she needs to accept that she can't take a picture of her "precious firstborn" for child protection reasons, and many others that I can't just bring to mind, but if I have to I am prepared to go back over the entire thread and itemise every such post. It's small wonder that she has got frustrated and resorted to sarcasm. But mostly she uses humour to diffuse poster's who want to insult her or attempt to prove she is wrong. Many posters have persisted in "arguing the toss with her" when they have absolutely no legal knowledge whatsoever which is arrogant to say the least. When this happens she politely asks if they will point out the part of the legislation that proves their point, and they usually disappear at that point, though some still persist..........and then she is told that it isn't fair to expect a lay person to have this kind of understanding of the law. And as she says NO it isn't fair but FGS why do these people persist in arguing with her on points of law.
I simply don't understand why people think they have more knowledge of the law than an experienced lawyer - I wouldn't dream of thinking I had more medical knowledge than a nurse or doctor, or a teacher, accountant, therapist, builder, plumber or whoever. My background is in social care and I too have been taken to task on threads by people questioning my social work practice when they have absolutely no knowledge of the nature of the work. I don't get it - I really don't. One of my posts was deleted recently on the basis that I had made a personal attack on someone. I have been in contact with MNHQ and stressed that I was aggrieved as I didn't consider my comment to be a personal attack, and they have conceded that it was probably more inflammatory - and I'm not in agreement but was going to let the matter rest. I queried how decisions were made about particular posts "breaking the Talk Guidelines" as I imagine there would be varying perspectives, but I haven't had a response.
I'm really upset - I've had a difficult day and came on this thread to cheer myself up because earlier I'd seen Spero and someone else posting pictures of their pets, and I was looking forward to more of Spero's humour and Chandler is also a lawyer and she too is very witty, but was really upset to see Spero's post about the e mail from MNHQ.
Totally unfair.