Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

Did you ban John Hemming (the MP) for outing me ?

999 replies

CarpeVinum · 21/12/2013 23:47

Cos he isn't on The Thread.

And I'd like to know why.

I am immaginging that the party whip we've been phoning, emailing and twittering has tied him up and run off with his keyboard.

Can I hang on to that fantasy, or did you ban him ?

It's not the end of the world to me that he posted my twitter account, knowing it was me and knowing it was my real name. But I will quickly drum up some minding if required to purge MN of his presence.

OP posts:
koTinkaBell · 23/12/2013 19:32

I'm never a fan of using a real name online. Might be good to tweet with an online name instead of real names.

Lioninthesun · 23/12/2013 19:34

It half of what was so astounding though, the fact he wasn't in the least abashed by what he was saying/affirming/accusing. It really does make the mind boggle.

WestmorlandSausage · 23/12/2013 19:36

some of us don't use our real names on twitter though... which made his attempt to out us all.... to ourselves... all the more hilarious

Original poster
CarpeVinum · 23/12/2013 20:04

Might be good to tweet with an online name instead of real names

It was emergency, unforseeable tweeting. My account was initially created so I could communicate with other students on a MOOC and we were enrolled under our own names.

And I didn't actually mind saying what I wanted to say in my name. I just didn't expect an ever so slightly "I know who you are, and now so does ecerybody else" toned posting of it on MN. Althpugh in retrospect... lack of expectation a tad optimistic on my part.

It's not my name on mumsnet I mind so much, as what the intent behind posting it was. It felt like an attempt at ... intimidation ? Maybe that sounds too strong. But that was the vibe I got from the context of the post in which it was contained, considering the implied power of the office held by the person who posted it.

IYSWIM

OP posts:
koTinkaBell · 23/12/2013 20:05

I completely agree, it is intimidation.

getagoldtoof · 23/12/2013 20:07

carpe and spero, I know you don't do it for recognition, or approval, but because it's right. I just wanted to say thank you. He is a terrifying character, so dangerous and unacceptably behaved. You are both amazing.

Lioninthesun · 23/12/2013 20:21

Yes, hats doffed to you ladies.

I would have found it intimidating, and I am sure he knew that too.
This man has two women who almost fall over themselves to defend him on here when he is the bully!

It really does make your skin crawl.

LakeDistrictBabe · 23/12/2013 21:06

@lioninthesun

It made our skin crawl too. And the intimidation thing went on and on. He started with Spero but when he understood a few posters were having her back, he started trying to intimidate everybody supporting her.
I don't use my real name on Facebook or twitter, that was not the point.. it is why he did it that got on my nerves.

koTinkaBell · 23/12/2013 21:10

I wasn't mentioning using fake names online to excuse his behaviour. I just wonder if we ought to protect ourselves.

Lioninthesun · 23/12/2013 21:28

Definitely if you are ever likely to link to Twitter or use it to talk about a topic on here! I don't use Twitter much but only sometimes link to something here on FB if I think it is interesting enough for friends to see. I sometimes do that even if I was just lurking on a thread though, so not much chance of people knowing it was me...but anyway. I am more keen to be anonymous after seeing the way he bounced between everyone daring to post in opposition to his ramblings! If he is doing it and is openly posting about it, you can only assume anyone who is posting is going to be a possible target for lurkers as well as posters Sad

Spero · 23/12/2013 21:47

Thanks getagold and lion.

I tweet in my own name because that is more a 'professional' thing.

I have posted a load of quite personal stuff on here so I guess if any lurker was sufficiently evil minded they could do a search and find out quite a lot about me.

I did think a few years ago I should maybe name change but then I thought, no sod it, there are many things I regret in life but very little of which I am actually ashamed.

But there are people on here who post very personal things, either to try and help others or to get some help themselves and anyone who just casually tries outing people is a nasty scum bag. When the outing isn't casual but done deliberately to intimidate and oppress then I can't say what I think they are, or I risk deletion.

Lioninthesun · 23/12/2013 21:53

Good for you Spero. I think it was a power trip for him that people will now always wonder whether someone like him is looking over their shoulder when they post on here. And he 'works with' vulnerable women, as you kept pointing out Hmm.
Luckily most people in my life know all about me and my opinions anyway Wink

MadameDefarge · 23/12/2013 21:59

Abusing women by hunting them down and exposing them against their wishes....

A bit old hat.

but all of a piece.

Spero · 23/12/2013 22:06

I have always maintained that the crusaders against state intervention in families are motivated not by concern for children but by male outrage that they are not permitted free reign to 'control' their families.

MadameDefarge · 23/12/2013 22:16

The things I would like to say about men betraying the women and children in their lives. But I won't.

WestmorlandSausage · 23/12/2013 22:19

I think I would agree with you Spero.

I would also add that aside from anything else it always surprises me that it is by and large men who take up these kind of fights. Not women, who are primarily the people these things actually happen to. Whenever policies and other things change that primarily affect women it is always men that are brought onto radio/ tv / print to comment upon the events.

Why is that?

Many women share the views of Mr Hemming and his ilk but where are all the prolific female campaigners on these issues? Why is debate about a women's fertility and childbirth rights/needs still a debate dominated by men (mumsnet aside)?

WestmorlandSausage · 23/12/2013 22:23

but back to the OP - I would still like to know if mumsnet can tell us why he was banned.

I would hate to think it was just to keep the peace, I would like and some recognition from them about what he has done in regards to putting the site at risk legally. I know they have to be neutral and all but...

MadameDefarge · 23/12/2013 22:23

Because we live in a patriarchal society.

Because women are bound by the immediacy of caring for children.

Because we earn so much less than men.

Because society still posits children as objects to be owned.

Because you can only fight the big fights if you have won the small ones.

LakeDistrictBabe · 23/12/2013 22:24

@West

In JH's case he is interested in publicity and campaigning for his own glory... I don't recall to have seen just one of his posts as adding something to the discussion... He didn't seem interested in any debate, only to post stuff and fake stats to prove that his point of view was the right one...

Did he seem interested in the topic in your opinion?

dhisaconspiracytheorist · 23/12/2013 22:24

Welsh case This other case is worrying that no notice was given to the woman and she was not represented.

LakeDistrictBabe · 23/12/2013 22:28

Sorry ladies but I found this quite enlightening and... Ridiculously funny at this point:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20093569

Spero · 23/12/2013 22:30

I don't understand that link dh, it reads as garbled. There is a link to the full report which I will read. I do not think it is possible for a person in that position to be unrepresented.

Spero · 23/12/2013 22:33

Ok dh you were right. She wasn't represented. But rather than starting a conspiracy hare running, maybe read the judgment which explains why?

For eg

Her consultant obstetrician found a very marked deterioration in her presentation. He describes how her usually more placid demeanour has become more and more aggressive, hostile, confrontational and oppositional, during the monitoring of her pregnancy. She has had, until recently, a fairly trouble-free pregnancy and her two previous deliveries were normal. She has had some internal bleeding. It is not clear how accurate her description of the severity is of that. There is a fear there may be problems with the attachment of the baby's placenta. She became very agitated when he needed to examine her and refused to be examined. She is not currently medicated or accepting her medication, and this cannot take place until after the birth. She showed pressure of speech; she swore, was verbally aggressive and she had what the obstetrician called "an outburst". She was threatening. A number of minor issues were raised by her which it was impossible to "de-escalate". He is extremely worried that the mother will not be compliant with staff during the birth process as a result of her discussions with him. I have been referred to his notes recorded in an internal meeting.
If professionals attempt to hold any form of conversation with her on a topic with arouses her emotion she becomes hostile very quickly. All the professionals who have been dealing with the mother are concerned that her mental health is currently deteriorating.
Her consultant psychiatrist reports that it has proved impossible to have a coherent rational conversation with her. She is "very thought disordered". The psychiatrist anticipates a struggle if the mother is asked to hand over the baby at birth. He believes that the risk to the baby when born would be high if the mother were to be allowed to hold the baby. He also infers that the mother's mental health was not as severely effected at the time when her older child was injured since she was not known to mental health services at that time.
All those who have had dealings with her think it highly likely that the mother would inadvertently harm the baby whilst attempts are made to remove it from her.
The view expressed by all the professionals is that if she is told about any plan to remove the baby at birth or after birth (under an emergency protection order or interim care order) this will exacerbate the problems with her mental health and "increase the already risky situation that is likely to occur following the birth". She is presently in a psychiatric unit and arrangements are being made for her to undergo her delivery at a local hospital.

MadameDefarge · 23/12/2013 22:33

oh dear.

MadameDefarge · 23/12/2013 22:34

John. if you want to post, you are banned.

If you use your partner to post. Try for another username.