Wings Over Scotland: The Grooming of Holyrood

[DerekFaker]

Good, detailed article on Beth Douglas and associates (Jess Bradley).

wingsoverscotland.com/the-grooming-of-holyrood/

Then be a decent human being and a decent man and just amend the bloody article before you enrage a whole load of women just so your precious article isn't changed.

For God's sake man, where is your compassion?

There really is no need to expose this woman's name whoever is asking. I don't see any problems with blurring images or blanking out names. There is a strong enough case without it.

"RSC, you could easily remove the name from the article, and obscure images."

The fact that you've skim-read the post and not bothered to take in or understand what I said in relation to that is, tbh, why I don't intend to get into any fights about it here. I've said my piece, you can all have your own views on it and I don't intend to comment further. Nor do I intend to send, or even risk sending, identifying details of an abuse victim to an unverified email or Twitter address just because they claim to be that person.

Does Mumsnet need a blue tick system? Maybe I'm not really Pickle. I'd better go and check.

If there's any doubt that you might be distressing a victim, surely there's no harm in redacting?

What is the argument for retaining?

Then you are not a very nice man.

My face is on my email address! My new name is on my email address! I don't know what more you could want.

My mum has literally emailed you from her work email. If you don't believe that I am me could you at least send it to her?!

As is the case for many many women escaping their abusers!

We know this! It was also potentially why the person involved may not have access to a joint crowdfunder to have it removed.

a crowdfunder that has unique medical details on!!!!

This whole thing has been mishandled from the point that there is an abused victim here and sometimes the usual assumptions simply don’t work!!! And an already abused person is then subject to abuse starting up again !!!

Even the knowledge that you could potentially, in fact wether it is this woman of not, be outing this person in real life should be enough for you to amend.

No-one here understands why you are prepared to risk a woman's safety like this when your piece is about a man who likes risking women's safety.

How do you not see that?

Yes, exactly, it's filling in the hole with one hand while digging it with the other. Pointless.

Mnhq could certainly verify the account.

Theres more of a magnification of the abuse suffered rather than derailment from my pov.

There really is no need to expose this woman's name whoever is asking. I don't see any problems with blurring images or blanking out names. There is a strong enough case without it.

I agree. Can you not just amend the article going forwards, @RevStuartCampbell ? I personally believe she is who she says she is because a considerable time ago (so before Douglas' rise to fame in the last couple of years) I did some digging and read an exchange between her and Douglas, and her posts here are enough to convince me. She also isn't a completely new poster.

I think it's an excellent piece, very much needed, and you've done a great job, and I fully agree with you that Douglas needs to be exposed. But this young woman is a victim, she isn't necessary to the story and her wishes should be respected. I say this as a survivor of rape and domestic abuse myself, as many of the women are here.

The key individual in the piece definitely doesn't look any 'better' as a result of this thread, so I find that idea weak.

From MNHQ earlier today

I can't believe I am having to justify myself just to make sure people don't think I am my abuser. I cannot explain how triggering it is for people to think that I am literally Beth.

The key individual in the piece definitely doesn't look any 'better' as a result of this thread, so I find that idea weak.

Exactly!

Fully agree with everything Eresh says above.

The piece is forensic and very much needed but key details could be redacted.

Purple, mumsnet did exactly the same for me when I was outed here. And my situation was no where near as worrying or dangerous. They bent over backwards for me and I was in awe of their ability to offer protection.

Dont need a screen shot to know that they can do that and probably have to for menu Women here. In fear of male abuse.

I simply don't see why the piece can't be redacted in the same way.

They are wonderful. MN is a fantastic site for protecting survivors in my experience.

The fact that you've skim-read the post and not bothered to take in or understand what I said in relation to that.

tbh I think everyone understood your point that one can still Google the text and find the details of the posts.

The poster has said she’s asking for the crowdfunder to be taken down. The Twitter account is already down (some evidence pointing in the direction that this person is who they say they are.) So that will soon be much less true. Your post will be the only thing publicly pointing at her identity.

And there is no reason not to blur the picture and name. Or at least if there is, you haven’t explained it. I do appreciate that you can’t take someone online at their word here, especially when such manipulative and dangerous characters are involved. But blurring the name of a victim is good practice anyway.

@RevStuartCampbell also if you keep the details in then you are choosing not to see this person/the person mentioned in your article as a victim of this man.

Is that what you want all us women to think. That you deny the lived experience of a woman who may have been raped and abused?? Any woman?

The only possibility of removing him from this extremely disturbing position of influence is to expose exactly what sort of a person he is, and that requires revealing things he's done. There is no way of doing that without publishing the material we published. (Simply redacting ' name would still have enabled anyone to find it by searching for the text.)

Look, I've reread this a few times to try and grasp the position.

You don't solve abuse by forcing survivors to put themselves at risk. That's just recreating the abusive dynamic.

If redacting the name leaves an abuse victim vulnerable, then that section should be removed entirely.

Oh, bollocks, I starred out the name and it fucked the formatting.

@RevStuartCampbell

REMOVE THE INFORMATION THAT COULD POTENTIALLY IDENTIFY THE VICTIM OF A CRIME

I keep trying to grasp that position Arabella; I keep thinking of safeguarding scenarios we have to study when we do safeguarding training that quite clearly communicate how awful people are without mentioning anything about the victims if they're still alive.

because a considerable time ago (so before Douglas' rise to fame in the last couple of years) I did some digging and read an exchange between her and Douglas, and her posts here are enough to convince me.

If I didn't make it clear, I was digging into Douglas' social media to find out because I found Douglas concerning, not @thecaseofthepurplecushion - I merely read her posts.