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.

he was the chef for the abbey!

(he had been thrown out a few months previously, poor chap. Can't think why )

arf indeed.

There are two questions here, getting mightily confused.

One is the rights and wrongs of being a rev on mumsnet; for what it's worth, I came across her on a few threads - incl reluctant worshippers - and thought she was doing a brilliant, and very clever thing on them. But opinions on whether mn needs a rev will differ, and fair enough.

But the other issue is what the hell happened on that thread, which has nothing to do with her rev-ness or otherwise. It was deeply unpleasant, and, if she was indeed hounded off board, then possibly a matter for the police.

But by confusing the two, MNHQ have made a right hash of things, as Rubberduck, nantucket and a few other people have pointed out. It looks as though the bullying is being swept under the carpet, and the victim made to pay. If this was the narrative of a post about a child at school, MN would be roaring with outrage at the injustice.

And it is wierd that this kind of PR mishap keeps happening when there seems to be some kind of white fungal element to things. I don't know if it's accidental - MNHQ are embarrassed and so keep being cack-handed - or whether they are actually on Mouldies. But it is starting to really piss me off. It doesn't feel - as someone else said way back - that we, the punters, are being told the whole truth or treated fairly, and that's not normally how MN works.

And by the time I've typed all that out, the whole thing will have moved on so far it won't make any sense

'It looks as though the bullying is being swept under the carpet, and the victim made to pay. If this was the narrative of a post about a child at school, MN would be roaring with outrage at the injustice.'

Exactly vonsud.

And nice satire Cod.

I agree with vonsudenfed. And to put the record straight (as rev is far too nice to drop anyone else in it), it was me who first mentioned the boycott of M&S. So if anyone's going to be hunted down by a pack of baying psychos who haven't got anything better to do, it should be me.

christ on a bike

well that's not very appropriate is it?

I don't think he ever was. On a bike I mean.

I think it sums it up

he was never on a bike

neither wsa his middle name anything beginning with H

No. I always wondered about that mp.

What does Justabout say? She would know conclusively, what with being a Rev and all.

That beginning with H thing always confused me - I thought the Lord's Prayer went 'Harold be thy name' for years.

Lemontart, your post of 19:17:28 was really lovely.

might i enquire who vonsudafed and nantucket are?

feel i know you.

definitely agree with what you say on this thread.

Oh, I'm nobody - a very irregular poster. have been here for years, but not so as you'd notice. This, however, has annoyed me into putting my head over the parapet. (I read all the mouldering stuff, but never needed to say anything as the rev was doing such a good job)

If the Mumsnet philosophy is as Justine said earlier "all posters are equal"

Then we should question if those posters who belong to the breakaway forum - (set up in my opinion as they felt they were too good for Mumsnet and that Mumsnet had nothing to offer them anymore - hardly a sign of equality) should be "allowed" to continue being members of Mumsnet?

I do appreciate that you can be a member of more than one forum without it causing problems, but this whole sorry episode does seem to be centering now on a few old posters coming back and causing ill feeling and upset.

tortoishell i repeat: Do you honestly think rev should not reveal the fact that she is ordained and co-ordinate the reluctant worshippers reflections?

haven't read all the thread, sorry, but i don't understand the MNHQ reaction. she IS a rev, isn't she? since when were there guidelines as to what someone should be called.

seems to me that the rev is a victim of something here... so the people who were questioning her don't believe she's a rev? tough. she is. and they owe her an apology.

(has one been given yet? haven't seen all the threads. apols if so).

What vonsudafed said.

Specifically with this: "But by confusing the two, MNHQ have made a right hash of things, as Rubberduck, nantucket and a few other people have pointed out. It looks as though the bullying is being swept under the carpet, and the victim made to pay. If this was the narrative of a post about a child at school, MN would be roaring with outrage at the injustice."

But also all the other stuff she's said. And Nantucket.

I'm really, really disappointed by the MNHQ reaction. Like saying to a gay child who's being bullied, 'well, you are rather flamboyant, aren't you? Couldn't you just, you know, be less emphatically you?"

I think that there is an important point of principle here, to which the 'expert/expertise' distinction is a very red herring.

A poster - any poster, could be me, could be you - should be staunchly defended when they are attacked, repeatedly and by more than one poster, with no provocation or proof.

When that attack affects her Real FAMILY Life - however that has happened - MN has an absolute moral duty to show that it will not be tolerated.

Justine: do you agree? Because it is my, and other's opinion that thus far, behind the carefully neutral tone, you've done nothing of the kind.

it"s a good name von

no apology Aitch.

aitch and onebat. I'm a bit confused by the mn response too tbh.

revjustabout is hardly a name that cries out I'M AN EXPERT.

anything but it is a name that says i'm something to do with religion, justabout!!!