Ah I'm enjoying SPEROGATE - the thread is now far more interesting and the humour has returned, which has made me smile (a lot) I wonder Spero if you have ever thought of doing "stand up comedy" as a side line, and you could rest assured you couldn't be photographed, as to do so would be a breach of the Protection of Barristers Act 1896 - I love the Kruger Dunning thing (if that's the right spelling) and think that is an absolutely perfect example of what's been happening on this thread.
Now here's a thing - I take great pleasure from the "back and forth" humour and wit of Spero Chandler Bore and others, but know that I can't compete, and this can be demonstrated by my pathetic attempt in the above para. I was hoping the lawyers/scientists/and indeed anyone who is capable, would come up with legislation that MNHQ might have breached by sending that E mail to Spero
So come on you lot..........maybe a little competition to brighten up a Friday afternoon?
BUT on a serious note I am still wondering if MNHQ have actually detailed which of Spero's posts were perceived to be R and I
and the reasons for this perception. I think it is of vital importance that this is revealed, not just for Spero but for all of us who have been incensed by MNHQs E mail. Allegations must surely be evidence based ?? Are you interested in getting this information Spero
I think Spero's response to Olivia(MNHQ) was very measured and polite in the circumstances and was a good example of her style of posting and she gave MNHQ the opportunity to concede they got the tone of the E mail wrong, by stating that she thought the tone of the mail "was rather odd." A post of mine on this thread was deleted and when I queried why, I was given the comment that was perceived to be a personal attack and I disagreed. I explained that in my view a personal attack was a direct interaction between A and B and A made a personal, insulting, offensive attack on B which was likely to cause great distress. I asked if they had a different perception and got a reply saying "We know where you're coming from and it may have been better to call this comment inflammatory..."
I queried about decision making about deleted posts and the protocol on this issue as perceptions would differ but received no response.
I think now is the time for MNHQ to be more open with us and let us know how this issue is handled at HQ and how (and by whom) decisions are made to delete posts. I'd be interested to know if this decision is made by one employee or whether it is a collective decision. I don't know how many people are employed at MNHQ nor how they operate really, so it feels a bit like Big Brother sometimes.
Do any of you agree ?
I was once issued with an ultimatum about my posts - can't remember exactly how it was phrased but that was the message and was in relation to my posts, after being seriously provoked by ...........wait for it Spero none other than JH. In fact I was required to actually confirm that I would abide by the talk guidelines in future and I felt really aggrieved by this, but I felt I had no option. I have a mental health problem and the MH threads have been a lifeline to me in the past and I was very distressed at the threat that I would be banned from MN. In fact I felt backed into a corner and very disempowered.
I knew JH had reported you to the Bar Council Spero but "outing you in the Daily Mail" dear god - he could have chosen a quality newspaper. Another example of Kruger Dunning for sure!
Anyway Sainsbury's is calling.....so keep the humour up please, it is tremendous for lifting the spirits.