Anyone interested?

[Rachel1969]

Hi All
I've been chatting here for a while now but sometimes feel as though I can't come on just as a mum because of my job as a journalist - it's so hard to switch off from work when I spent half my life writing about the subjects that we talk about here. Also I don't feel I have the anonimity that you all enjoy to talk freely about whatever problems etc I have because I;ve told everyone where I work - all you need to do is open the Mail most Thursdays and my ugly mug will be staring back at you.
So ... I've decided to sign off as rachel1969 and come back under a new name so that I can be a mum when I come on here.
But what I was hoping was that anyone who would like to be on a database I have of email addresses through which I send out cries for help on all the wierd and wonderful parenting/women's issues the Mail has me working on might send me their own emails.
If you do, don't tell me your chat name on mumsnet or you won't be anon yourselves anymore - do you get my drift??
I have a huge list of contacts who I email out to every week or so asking if they know anyone who might be relevent to what I;m working on - if they don't they just ignore it, if they do they help me out.
If anyone does fancy it - it can be quite amusing if nthing else, then please email me at [email protected]
Take care all
Rachel

Hi Rachel or should that be goodbye?

Anyway, I can understand why you feel that your two worlds are colliding. As far as I'm aware, no one else here has admitted to having an occupation that's so in the public eye.

However I would hazard a guess that, as you say, the sense of anonimity that the rest of us enjoy to talk freely about whatever problems we have etc varies hugely from person to person. Every time I see a board asking me about where I work, how I chose my nick name, where I live, etc etc I really enjoy answering and reading what others have posted, yet I know that the more details I give out, the easier it would be for some logged-on acquaintance, old enemy or colleague to spot me. Even when you're posting something that is totally mum-orientated and state the ages of your children or what nappies you buy, you are still giving out facts. I'm sure no-one would want to trawl through my messages and collate them, but if they did they could build up quite a detailed picture. So I do try to think twice before I put down details, while consoling myself that my life is so mundame there's little that's of interest anyway.

To be frank (now there's a good new nickname for you, Rachel!)I did think about inventing an extra 'virtual' child to add to our family to act as a smokescreen, but somehow I just couldn't do it. It would have felt too dishonest.

And then of course, even if you don't reveal your nickname, do you tell your partner about mumsnet or can they find out? Not a problem for me since we do not have internet access at home (there you go - another detail to chip away at my anonimity!). And in years to come, will my sons log on here out of curiosity and recognise themselves?

Sorry I'm rambling, I'm sure you're not as naive to think that all of us feel totally anonymous here, though obviously I can't speak for anyone but myself on this. I feel much, much, more anonymous here that with a bunch of 'real' friends, but I suppose you try to make a happy compromise - I have anyway.

This anonymity thing is interesting. The very same things Tigermoth raised have crossed my mind on a number of occasions. It has often occured to me that someone who actually new me would surely be able to spot me and I've never responded to the boards about where I am or how I chose my codename.
It also made me think that Justine, Carrie and Rachel have a huge amount of very personal information about us all - not that I'm doubting their integrity but I have wondered before now about the security of their computers, given that hackers are so incredibly proficient these days.
It is probably rather egocentric of me to imagine that anyone would be interested in my relatively humdrum life but I'd just hate to have some of the information I've shared here to hurt anyone close to me.

Tigermoth, I'm so pleased you said all that 'cos I've thought and done all of it - not invented another child but did think about it! I thought it was just me and my paranoid nature but now I feel much better. In fact there have been times when I have purposely avoided adding a message because it will maybe give too much away about myself.

I know that if someone close to me happened upon the right boards and collated the messages I would be identifiable, mainly because a friend of mine did (I had mentioned the website in passing but not the chat boards but she went exploring). That in itself didn't really bother me. What did was that before she told me that she had done so she told another friend and both went trawling to see what I had been saying before owning up. Both are childless and, because of circumstance, it happens that I know v few people in a similar situation to me right now (partly because I work 4 days a week in a situation not full of young working mothers). Here I feel I can be part of a similar community sharing and learning and it has been really helpful. They are the most helpful friends in the world but there are times that they won't be able to help/understand and I kind of feel like my little world here has been invaded. I did hum and haw about changing my nickname but given that they have promised not to do it again and that if people who know me don't like what I write then they shouldn't have been hunting so hard to piece the bits together to identify me!

All very interesting. Just a random thought, taking on board what Suew and Harrysmum have said:

Does anyone think it would be a good idea if old messages, accessed by the name search button (not the ones on the talk boards themselves) could be archived at certain intervals?

Also, would it be a good idea if anyone who uses the search button to review all the messages posted by another person (if anyone ever does this?) has to list their own codename, so at least you know the codename of whoever looks you up?

I am not a techie, so I don't know what is normal protocol - or what is possible.

Ooh err, you're all getting me worried now. From mother in upstairs middle bedroom, can type 50 words per minute (not necessarily in the right order)38C bra much bigger pants.

Definately no diamonds here. Plenty of gravel though! It is food for thought though. Good idea about the archiving and searching options Tigermoth.

You work for the Mail, they always slag off working mothers. I am surprised they gave you a job! I read (in the library) more prejudiced things in there than anywhere else.

Are you the one shining star there? I don't mean to slag you off but I couldn't do it. Then again, they only way to change something is from the inside I guess.

I was doing a journalist course but the place shut down. Prior to that, I tried to do it at Uni but there were loads of clashes. And now I can't afford to do it. But I am more interested in features than "ms so and so down the road did this and that" so I have been told that I may not need the basics. It's a bit slack of me not to be where I should in terms of my work but I did get ill. I know time is passing me by, realistically I only have a few years left to "make it".

There are lots of websites where you can use "Anon" or any name you wish. It's good in a way, but it does have it's problems.

40F pants, rhiannon?

I've thought the same as all of you - but before getting too paranoid I think, what would someone do with this info? Almost anyone can get your address and phone number from the web (yes even if you are x-directory), and I'm sure your local supermarket (monitoring those points you rack up) has built up a profile of your habits more detailed than mumsnet!

It is scarey how much of our lives is monitored. I received a survey in the post yesterday asking about my likes and dislikes - it covered 10 pages and was by the post office no less. They said it was so they could more accurately send me the right [junk] mail. But again there was more detailed info in there than on this site: how much do you spend on this and that? what do you like to do? what's your car? how big is your
house etc, etc.

strangely there was no question saying: do you actually want ANY junk mail!! I scribbled NO JUNK MAIL AT ALL on the front and sent it back!

SO DON'T WORRY - BIG BROS KNOWs IT ALL ANYWAY!

Lisa, just to say that exactly the same thing happened to me - I'd baked a cake and the flat was spotless. People are just so rude, aren't they? Having said that, the next one I did was a great success with 5 people & babies there! Maybe next time, you should ask people to phone in advance if they're not going to be able to make it. Good luck.

Right message Rosy - wrong listing! Thanks anyway! I don't think my NCT group are worth baking a cake for - I only bake for people I like!

By the way, I live in a very small house, with two huge dogs, nothing of any value in the house at all and I look like Anne Widdecoombe!

No, seriously, thinking about it I have given lots of info away about me on these listings, most people know where I come from, my age, how many children, her name, etc. I don't mind for myself but now I am worried for her. I should be more cautious I know, I'm just so trusting!

From now on just call me Al!

Oooooh, Jbr - so you're a closet Daily Mail reader, but only in the library of course.
Come on - all newspapers churn out the same old stories all the time and pay particular attention to their target audiences.
The Mail is largely read by middle class working mothers - I don't have a problem with that and I don't see why anyone else should. Unless of course there are moves afoot to have middle class working mothers banned from reading newspapers altogether.
It's tosh that the Mail is down on working mothers - they are our bread and butter. I've lost count of the number of pieces I've been asked to do in response to the various reports which suggest that working mothers damage their kids/stay-at-home mums damage their kids/single mums damage their kids/two parents and a dog type families damage their kids...
Each piece done in response gets a variety of reactions from ... WORKING MOTHERS - a voice is given to each opinion so that it's balanced and has something anyone reading it can relate to. Sometimes I write a personal piece when I get to say whatever I believe and sod what anyone else thinks. The idea is, of course, to provoke a reaction.
And I don't know who told you that to be a feature writer you don't need the basics - I trained for two years, studying law etc so that I won't get sued for what I write. I worked for five years in regional papers and another five on the nationals. I covered news before moving on to features. It's been a long hard slog - but worth it.
I'm not trying to change anything Jbr - if I was ever asked to write about something I didn't feel comfortable with I'd just say no. I've only needed to do that once.
You could take a moral stand on what most people do for a living - but that's not really fair is it? We do what we do through choice or circumstance - why judge anyone for that?

PS Obviously no point in changing my name until I let go of the need to crusade for the gutter press!

I know loads of working mothers who ask why don't you look at working dads? In fact the phrase "working dad" never gets used. I used to go to Babyworld website a lot and you should see what they think of the Daily Mail. It is the press in general actually more than anything.

I can't remember what I said exactly but a couple of people I know didn't do all the general reporting but I know some who did - a few have gone in at all kinds of different routes. It is funny about law you would think it would a simple piece of common sense ie tell the truth but it seems some newspapers have difficulty doing it.

I really want to write concert reviews but seeing as you think I am useless I may as well pack in hadn't I? But then I've got mental health difficulties and newspapers don't like that either as I know from an article I had to write and do research for, so they probably wouldn't give me a job anyway!

I read the Daily Mail, I'm avidly collecting tokens to win £100,000 at the moment! The Times on a Sunday though. I refuse to buy the Mail at weekends in the Winter due to their obsession with skiing.

I don't actually see what was so offensive about me pointing out the sexist things in newspapers anyway! I don't understand why you had a go at me; I was only pointing out that the Mail is rather right wing and you didn't seem to be like that so I thought maybe you were trying to change their perspective on things. And if you noticed I said I "may" not need the basics seeing as I have some experience. I did say it was slack of me not to get where I should be, but I was ill. I don't think you having a go at me for a conversation I had with someone is going to suddenly make me more likely to get where I am going. Are you going to track down the person who said I might not have to do reporting before I write music features and tell them how wrong they are?!

Your attack on me was completely unjustified.

Oh please Jbr - there's no need to take it so personally. I was responding to your points in turn - surely that doesn't constitute victimisation.
You sound to me very angry about a whole load of things
It's unfair to say that newspapers are anti-mental illness - I've been involvled with a very successful campaign myself to raise awareness about this subject and to fight prejudice. Without newspapers to raise awareness about mental health there would be many more people suffering in silence.
I've letters from people who I've written about with mental health problems which are testement to the way they've been helped by the media.

Like most people here Jbr if I feel I am being attacked - read back your message, it's here in print if your memory needs refreshing - I will respond.
I'm not on a moral crusade to clean up the press - I just make sure that whatever I write as a journalist is done with integrity. Re: studying law - you have no idea how far-reaching the legal implications are of so much of what you write. I interviewed a couple last month who's daughter was raped - they pleaded with me to get their story printed because they wanted their neighbours to know the truth about what happened to their 12-yr-old daughter. Had I printed the truth - ie identified them as they wished, put in certain information that was the truth but which was a legal minefield - then they'd find themselves standing next to me in court later this year. It's not as simple as just telling the truth.
The fact that I;m a journalist doesn't make me a bad person who must shrug her shoulders when the press in general is slagged off and say 'yeah, we're awful aren't we'. Nor am I a nice person on on a mission - I'm just doing a job that I love.
Yes - newspapers make mistakes, so do doctors, brain surgeons, peace workers etc etc. But if someone came on who was a GP would you start pointing out what a git Harold Shipman was?

I have responded to what you've said because I feel I must - I'm proud of what I do, and I don't like to made to feel as though I should be ashamed. However I now feel I have argued my point and were we to continue I'd end up repeating myself - I think the same goes for you doesn't it so shall we just drop it now?

If you're really interested in writing music features Jbr then I'd be glad to help you get in touch with some people who could help you do just that. Why don't you email me at [email protected] and I'll point you in the right direction. Talk to you soon?
Rachel

jbr, what IS your problem? i used to know somebody who went at the world the exact same way you do - she always knew better than everybody else too - and she is a geordie too, from blyth.

must be something in the water up there.

I wasn't having a go at you for your job, it was that paper. If I listed all the dubious language they use in there I would be here all day. You've just said mental health "problem" when the word should be "difficulty". I would actually love to edit as well. I did edit for a local paper last year and I enjoyed it.

jbr, the word SHOULD be difficulty? says who? why don't you run for parliament, get elected, become party leader, then prime minister, and then issue a list of the words and concepts you consider correct, following which anybody who doesn't use them can be shot.

if i or any of my family had a mental health DIFFICULTY i'm sure we would find it a major PROBLEM.

It is only a problem to other people. I spent my last year of Uni investigating prejudiced language. And as someone with a difficulty I resent someone depicting it as a problem. It is a difficulty to me, but a problem to other people.

The government are looking into this actually and about time! Never describe someone as being a problem, it adds to the feeling that you are in the way when having difficulties.

rachel said "people with mental health problems". what's wrong with that?

and how do you feel about the phrase "looked-after children" for what used to be called "children in care"?
it seems to imply all the other children in the country aren't looked after.
messing about with words like "in care" "problem" and "difficulty" because some people find some of them inappropriate doesn't really help anybody or change anything. it's like when they showed dambusters (?) this month and deleted all references to the dog called nigger. some non-white (is that ok???) people found THAT offensive.
society evolves language so that REALLY unpleasant words like nigger, wog, spastic, cripple, blinkie, kike, wop, etc etc etc become unacceptable to the majority and that's good. if we all have to stop and think every time we use a word that labels somebody "oh, dear, can i say this, will it be offensive" we might end up not communicating at all. (on bbc message boards the words pakistan and wogan are automatically moderated by the system because they incorporate "paki" and "wog"....)
meanwhile all the racists and other bigots in the world gaily carry on insulting everybody they want to. how worthwhile is that if the rest of us are gagged by the sensibilities of the PC lobby???

I realise that this is getting very personal. But I am fairly new here Jbr, and from most of the listings I have read that you have posted, you are always either on the offensive or the defensive. You snipe at people because they use 'inappropriate words' such as Mums and Tots, what's so wrong with that? I've yet to see a dad turn up at our 'Tots Group'.

Rachel posted a genuine message saying how she could not post on Mumsnet using her real name, you post a message attacking her newspaper and her crediblity as a reporter. When Rachel quite rightly defended herself, you play the 'innocent' got at victim.

I had mental problems myself, as did my husband. They are problems as they affect the whole family, it is selfish to think otherwise. Luckily we both seem to be ok now, but I would never use it as an excuse to behave in a certain way, which is what you seem to be doing.

As I said, I am sorry if all this seems very personal, but I do think that you are wrong in what you say. Please don't be so aggressive as you may well end up hurting someone, and that's not very pc either.