Dear MNHQ, I didn't see all the problems kick off over poor Revjustabout...

[georgimama]

but I would be grateful if you could tell me that you have at least given serious consideration to banning the posters who were harrassing her.

Thank you.

CreativeZen.
With respect, this has been a very complex and fraught moment in MN history, and I'm not sure you're entirely aware of the nuances of it all.

This is a copy of my email to MNHQ, if anyone is intersted, I';ll let you know when I get a reply:

I'm not reporting my post, but stating my disappointment at your handling of these malicious targetted attacks on Rev.

Enid and PPH have only posted this year to attack her, PPh has done it more than once, it has been done in a particuarly unpleasant vitriolic manner, and because of that Rev has to change her name??

This is not right.

You seem reluctant to firmly state here who is in the wrong. If this has anything to do with the attackers being old Mners, then I'd suggest your loyalty is very misplaced, they will not be staying once this dies down, they have not been here this year, only to attack, whereas the Rev is just the sort of MNer we should be defending, honest, intelligent and balanced.

This changing of her name seems to indicate she has done something wrong in using it and somehow complicit in these attacks. I find that abhorrent.

If some one bullies you for a personal attribute should you change it? No, the bullies should stop bullying.

Calling heself Rev may cause controversy (although it hasn't, only since pph stated the trouble) but that is REvs perogative, I think to suugest she changes it due to bullying is shameful and weak.

sophable (strokes hair soothingly) no one nicecould think ill of you !

Lauriefairy, that is what my searches indicate.

CreativeZen, close the door on the way out... we happen to quite like our Rev, and she has every right to call herself that.

you've left Moldies sophable? Didn't know that.

Creative
you keep posting that everyone here is terrible and a baying pack etc and yet you are still here.

Seriously. It isn't compulsory.

I don't especially like the angst but it has a strange compulsion about it - but you don't have to. People saying I am not a cucumber etc are joking - not trying to draw a comparison.
And with respect I am not sure that saying you are a rev when you are a deacon is really an advertising campaign which could result in some kind of ecumenical catastrophy.

I realise you are indignant but i think you do not really get the many layers to this and would probably get a better view of MN if you wandered a bit.
It is quite nice outthere most of the time

no need to be rude thereverendcustado
im just questionning all aspects of this whole thing, if you have a look
i dont see why it should get on your tits particularly unless you are only looking for offence and irritation in such things in what people are posting

A deacon is a rev. And rev was doing it partly in humour anyway. And the Reluctant Worshippers thread is not led by her in any way except she asks regular MNetters to lead a reflection each week. Which these people who criticize her would know if they'd read any of her bloody posts.

And vulnerable people can latch on to anybody here who takes their fancy, anyone who gives them a kind word. We all knew Cod was a magistrate, didn't m atter if she had it in her name or not, it was talked about often enough. So should rev not have discussed her profession at all?

if they'd read any of her bloody posts .

aaargh.

I think she should keep her name

I think the deal is that she was giving herself plausibility on religious or emotional issues on those grounds.

Any lawyer who posts legal advice normally does so on the " I don't know the case but this is what i THINK".

And I am sure she would need permission from her Arch Deacon to start offering professional advice to any group outside her parish.

I agree with Rhu - we need a parnoid corner

It is protecting her as well - if she isn't posting as a rev then she can't be 'called' on her posts. If she posts as a rev, then it could be regarded as 'official' and she could easily get into trouble if she posted something not approved by the CE.

arf at plausibility on religious grounds. Anyone can say 'yes you have to eat turnips 3 times a week if you want to go to heaven i am a vicar'. If anyone has seen the robust nature of the discussions on the religion topic they'll know that no one cares if you are a vicar or an effing bishop.

And so what if rev could offer some helpful advice to someone? She has posted unfailingly in a compassionate, funny and humane way.

ummm.
But a member of the clergy is not a professional.
They can counsel but they cannot give professional advice. They are learned etc butthey are not paid to provide a service and their advice cannot be regarded as equally binding in any legal context.

A lawyer posts with caveats as such advice could be construed as given in their professional capacity and therefore attract legal liability.
A Rev has no such legal capacity.

It may make someone reading their posts give them more weight - which if the fact she is a rev is significant to you - is your choice

Or am I missing something.

she doesn't offer professional advice. She offers her opinions and thoughts. I really think people don't understand the way the church works.
Thanks rhubs.

at ruty saying what i said in about three words - and without confusing everyone

Rev should keep her name.

I didn't see any offers of professional advice. Not to mention the fact that anyone can preach about anything. You don't have to be a Priest/ess.

oh i was just about to say you said it a lot more coherently pag.

Has anyone who is not also a Mouldie had any issues with rev's name/identity? Anyone shocked that she is a deacon/isn't a vicar?

I suspect not, but very happy to be proven wrong.

MNHQ suggesting a name-change is bizarre. It is not as if it makes the slightest bit of difference to who justabout is. She was and still is a deacon in RL. People on here know that and that will colour their views on discussions, in the same way that they wouldn't argue with Tiktok on the latest breastfeeding research. The fact that Tiktok isn't called Tiktokthebfc makes not the slightest bit of difference to how people treat her.

If it was clear that rev was doing something suspect, then that is different. The JF episode came to a head when it was clear that JF was a) clearly impersonating a RL barrister who could be identified from her posts; and b) was giving out wrong legal advice to people who had done the research as to who she was and thought that she was therefore genuinely a family law barrister. Certainly a) can't apply to rev as she is genuine. So has she done anything along the lines of b)? If she had I suspect that the evidence would have been paraded?

If the only people "concerned" about rev's title are also mouldies then it smells a bit.