BS: Sackings at the Tower

Subject: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 06:23 AM

I forgot to post when this one finally came to a conclusion last week:


Tower of London sacks two yeomen


The story broke when the two men were suspended. Now the investigation is complete and they have been sacked for bullying the Tower's first ever female Beefeater.

Someone who had made a successful career in a traditionally male environment for 22 years is not exactly some shrinking violet. What she was subjected to must have been intimidating, demoralising and terribly isolating. Good on Moira for standing her ground.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: GREEN WELLIES
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 06:41 AM

Sadley there is still so much of it about. A friend of our sons is a femail jockey and at most race courses has to change in the public toilets. Not to save her modesty, but simply because the other jockey's and their valets will not allow her into their area. I admire any woman who is prepared to stick it out (if you pardon the expression).

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: GUEST,Lizzie Cornish
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 07:36 AM

If what happened, happened, then good for her...

However, it is also, sadly, incredibly easy these days for men to be 'taken to task' for 'harrassing' a woman....and often there is no, or very little case, to answer, but the mud sticks.

It was OK then, for Moira to call her male colleagues 'blokes'?

Now, had the men called her a somewhat derogartory name, would she have added that to her list of grievances?

There's always two sides to everything, and I think that at this present time, much is weighted AGAINST men.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 08:30 AM

As I said earlier, this is a woman who served in the military for 22 years. She knows what it is to work in a man's world, and she achieved distinctions for her excellent service. Hardly the type to suddenly get the wobbles if the chaps at work were being a bit off. She was subjected to a sustained campaign of bullying.

As for these poor, put-upon men being "taken to task" when there is no or very little case to answer: this isn't trial by tabloid. There was an industrial tribunal. There was an official investigation. The accusation of bullying was found to have grounds, including physical evidence, and they were sacked.

Since when is the word "blokes" offensive?

I think "at this present time", anyone with eyes and a brain knows perfectly well that being born a white male in most westen countries gives you numerous statistical advantages over being born into any other cultural or gender sub-group. It's hard enough out there for women who want to carve out a career in a man's world, especially when they are going into completely new territory the way that Moira did. She's a very brave lady. For another woman to cast doubt on the findings of her case when the facts are really very clear and have been upheld by an official investigation is distasteful.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: kendall
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 09:20 AM

I believe that the main reason that men in any "Macho" profession, military, fire fighter, police, resent having women do their job as easily as they can. It robs them of their tough guy facade.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: jacqui.c
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 09:34 AM

From the freedictionary.com

Bloke is simply a British slang term for 'man/guy', with perhaps slight connotations of masculinity.

Now, how the hell is that considered to be derogatory?

Having seen, first hand, the workings of an industrial tribunal I know that the allegations against those accused have to be pretty well iron clad to succeed. To actually start the proceedings takes a lot of courage and to know that you will have to continue to work in that environment, even if the accusations have been proven, can be daunting, as there will always be a certain amount of caution shown to the accuser by a lot of her colleagues. Since this article does not give details of what this woman had to deal with I think that it is foolish to suggest that her accusations were without merit and that the men were, effectively, the victims here.

There are still 'male bastions' in society and, again, to be the only female on the workforce in a previously male dominated area requires a lot of courage. She says "I had one chap at the gate one day who said he was completely and utterly against me doing the job". Having to work with someone who has that attitude toward you, simply due to your gender, has got to be difficult. I only hope that this event doesn't prevent other qualified women from joining the staff at the Tower.

Just remember, it's women like Moira Cameron who made it possible for all women to enjoy equality in work situations. Read your history.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 09:36 AM

I am all in favour of female equality, but I always wonder when there's all this fuss over one badly treated woman, why there isn't an equal amount of fuss for males in a similar position?
On Woman's Hour last week they were pleading for no sentences under 6 months for female offenders. No mention of the futility of similar sentences for men.
Goose and gander spring to mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Rapparee
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 09:37 AM

Lordy, Kendall. I was an military policeman, an infantryman, a stonecutter, and in other macho professions. A woman can do the job of a cop much more easily, at times, than a man -- they can defuse a situation just by their presence. In combat a man would slide a bayonet into you, but a woman would twist it to make sure you were dead. In stonecutting we used hoists (chain then, electrical now), air chisels, sandblasting, rollers, dock trucks, levers -- nothing a woman couldn't do.

Women can become good shots more quickly than men -- something long recognized by shooting instructors -- because they listen to instructions instead of assuming.

One of my family's motto has long been, "Try it before you say you can't do it."

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 09:57 AM

Giok, in this instance I think it's because her appointment was historical in itself - the first woman in hundreds of years to be appointed in that post. It was covered by all the national newspapers at the time. Now, it's exceptionally sad if such a groundbreaking and positive (not to mention high-profile) appointment eventually has such disastrous outcomes, but it seems clear that the bullying was PURELY based on her gender, and the fact that certain colleagues felt she should not be doing the job because she was a woman. Maybe you don't see equivalent "fuss" in the other direction because it's fairly rare for a man to either not get a job because of his gender, or to be systematically bullied just because his female colleagues think that, as a man, he ought not to be doing his job, and that, purely based on their own judgements, they have a right to intimidate him into leaving.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 10:27 AM

"Maybe you don't see equivalent "fuss" in the other direction because it's fairly rare for a man to either not get a job because of his gender, or to be systematically bullied just because his female colleagues think that, as a man, he ought not to be doing his job, and that, purely based on their own judgements, they have a right to intimidate him into leaving."


There are some women who feel very angry towards men...they are the female equivalent of a mysoginist/misogynist (damn, can never spell that word, LOL)..and they actually make some men's lives absolute HELL.

There are also women out there, the equivalent of 'blokes' who make sexist comments about and to men....who take great delight in hanging up the sexy posters of men..whilst perhaps choosing to slam into any man who fancies a Pirelli Calendar in his office. Some women are lewd and crude and sexist...and they make false accusations about men, for their own agendas.

And guess what...? More often than not, they are believed whilst the men have to live with the consequences...

Men are having a tough time....and that is not a wrong thing to say.

SOMEONE has to say it..so, I'm saying it...and nope, I ain't part of The Sisterhood.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 10:29 AM

On Woman's Hour last week they were pleading for no sentences under 6 months for female offenders. No mention of the futility of similar sentences for men.
Goose and gander spring to mind. <<<


That's appalling, John! Sheesh!

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 11:19 AM

Oh, it's very clear you are not part of the sisterhood, Lizzie. That's fine. But For doubts to be cast on the veracity of Moira's story just because she IS a woman is sexism of the worst kind, and the fact that it's coming from another woman is beyond understanding.

I know that there are asome women who seem to only derive their self-esteem from courting the approval of men, and who will even do down their own sex in the pursuit of it, but Moira's problem was real. It wasn't going to be solved by slathering on more glittery eyeshadow or batting her eyelashes or giggling suggestively every time someone with a penis walked by, or any other whimsical nonsense. She is an intelligent woman who had had a distinguished career in a tough, male-oriented world. She was qualified for her job. A couple of blokes decided that, because she didn't have a penis, they had the right to make her life hell for two years. She had the balls to stand up to them. They've been sacked, and deservedly so

This is not a case of some ball-breaking woman setting out to destroy men, and who couldn't work in a male environment - she couldn't have maintained her military career for 22 years, and achieved distinctions, if this were the case. This is not the case of some poor wittle girl who couldn't play with the big boys, so she ran to tell teacher. This is a case of a capable, competent woman who was nearly bullied out of her job by arseholes.

It's laughable, but all too predictable, that certain people on Mudcat would immediately be looking to find fault with her.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 11:40 AM

I know some men who have had their lives almost ruined by women with whom they have worked...and to assume that all women are downtrodden angels is madness. Some women are vitriolic bitches, with huge chips on their shoulders, looking for men to dump those chips on.

No, I'm not one of The Sisterhood, because I always choose to see both sides of a story, that of the man, and the women.   And I never believe that a woman is in the right, purely *because* she is a woman.

My life has not been enriched by a woman becoming a beefeater, nor has it been made somehow more meaningful. I have no axe to grind with men. I do not consider myself better than them. I realise we have different attributes, that they are stronger, have different skills, brains which work in different ways...

I am very happy as a woman. I love being a Mother, love feelig feminine, heck...I even used to love it when builders used to wolf whistle at me (a hanging offence in The Sisterhood)   LOL


And who the heck brought 'penises' into this discussion?

Are we now lowering ourselves to the kind of men who see women purely as physical parts?

I find that comment ridiculously sexist and insulting to many men, to be honest....

But hell, you're in The Sisterhood, so please, Crude Away to your heart's content, but forgive me if I disappear off to read a little from Jane Austen...

Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: jacqui.c
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 11:41 AM

On Woman's Hour last week they were pleading for no sentences under 6 months for female offenders. No mention of the futility of similar sentences for men.

Maybe because this was being discussed on WOMAN'S HOUR?

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: GREEN WELLIES
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 11:47 AM

"There are some women who feel very angry towards men..."

But Oh there are very many more angry men.

I work in a predonminatly male environement - heavy engineering - and I dont see why the hell, after going through a lengthy interview process which proved beyond doubt that I was capable of doing my job, I should then have to prove myself again in the work place.

When I attend site meetings with my boss, you would not believe the amount of men who assume I've come along to make the tea !

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 12:21 PM

Good on her. But like I said in the original thread I thought women were too sensible to partake in the manly occupation guarding the queens jewels while wearing silly clothes:-)

As to Lizzies >i>because I always choose to see both sides of a story. Well, I could point to any number of threads where anyone who disagrees with Ms Cornish is harrasing her, cannot see the world as it should be seen or is sworn at and attacked for simply stating an opposite view.

But as I will probably be accused of bullying or being in the secret clique of folk elite, I shall refrain from doing so. Unless, as seems likely, the thread becomes well and truly Cornished that is.

Cheers

DeG

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: GUEST,Emma B
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 12:30 PM

Discrimination against women is not confined to the work situation

The Scottish Parliament's Equal Opportunities Committee met in early November to re-examine the sentencing of women

The committee learned that women's experiences of the criminal justice system are different from men's and that some of these differences may stem from or result in discrimination or inequality.

The committee recommended:

"the Scottish Government should explain how they will address the issue of women being more harshly sentenced than men"

Additionally -
"While the report's focus is on female offenders, this does not mean that the committee is not interested in male offenders or that it considers female offenders should be treated more favourably than male offenders."


Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said:
"It's clear that more and more people, including this committee, are agreeing with the Scottish Government's position that prison should only be for the serious offenders who commit the serious crimes.

"That's why we have been working hard to ensure more low level offenders are given the chance to address the underlying causes of their behaviour rather than serve ineffective short jail sentences."


'Female offenders in the criminal justice system'

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 12:36 PM

"And I never believe that a woman is in the right, purely *because* she is a woman."

Well, how about believing that THIS woman is right because a tribunal has found that she was? Because the evidence was so strong that her two bullies have been sacked? Because there was PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of the bullying which was presented during the investigation? Is that enough? Or are the poor blokes bound to be the victims in your eyes because, quite frankly, you don't seem to like other women very much? Because that's all the "sisterhood" is: woman who care about other women, and sdon't define themselves through men, or through fawning over men. We are strong enough to know our worth, and to stand on equal terms with men. Many of us also like them rather a lot. I know I do. So this "man-hating" rubbish is exactly that.

I think it's rather sad when a woman has to still define herself and her self-worth through male approval and her sexuality - as the folk songs say, "For the leaves they will wither, and the branches will decay...and the beauty of a fair maid will soon fade away."

The brightest, most competent, most interesting women I know are also pretty damn sexy, and men find them so all the time. A woman doesn't have to be some parody of wilting, clinging, whimsical, over-made-up femininity to be sexy. She can have a career, she can be a mum, she can indulge her femininity in the manner of her choosing - lots of women do all of these things, and they manage to maintain happy, healthy relationships with men.

"My life has not been enriched by a woman becoming a beefeater, nor has it been made somehow more meaningful."

See, that's typical of your logic and short-sightedness, Lizzie. Because if women like Moira hadn't in the past done what she's done - been the first courageous woman to enter into a male workplace, and pave the way for future generations - you wouldn't have many of the freedoms you enjoy now. So you may not think she has enriched your life, but women like her certainly have. And who knows? Maybe your granddaughter will one day want to be a Beefeater, and will be grateful that Moira has done what she's done now. I know I'm grateful to women like her.

"Crude Away to your heart's content"

Ha. I see you discover your primness and sanctimony when convenient, Lizzie - normally you're effing and blinding in one of your rants, so do spare us the moral superiority.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: katlaughing
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 01:21 PM

THIS is why folks leave here...it is so predictable. We ask that folks NOT rise to the bait put out by trollers..yet you all take on one and you're off to the races. Back and forth, same old bullshit..that one is going to always say the opposite is true to whatever the rest of you post. So WHY DO IT? (That's rhetorical. I do not want an answer!) Just think about it, please.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 01:49 PM

I'll answer anyway.

It's such good fun and whiles away the long winters nights:-)

DeG

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: kendall
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 02:04 PM

I believe that there are many women who hate men because they are the type these women are attracted to. The loser, the drunk and the abuser.

Many men are attracted to women who cheat, wont work and also drink.

It's been said that men marry their Mothers. My Mother was one of the most respectable, decent, hard working people I ever knew.Maybe thats why I honor all women. (Except my first wife, her lawyer, and some of her friends...).
>
>
>
>A little humor!

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 02:10 PM

Because Jacqui, when women ask for equality, surely it should be for all?
Some animals are not more equal than others, to paraphrase Mr Orwell

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 02:32 PM

Sorry kat, but I have a right to my opinion, and just because it disagrees with yours, on this subject, does NOT make me a troll...nor does it make many of those who consistently disagree with me a lot of the time, trolls.

Please don't patronise me, or be rude in such a way, purely because you're a mod.

I get flaming mad with women who think that simply because they are a womem, it gives them 'rights' above men. In my book, it doesn't. Women have had it their own way for a very long time.

As I said, which was completely overlooked, I know men who have been bullied and harrassed, yes, accused too, by women, so we are not all saints. That stands on both sides.

Ruth, if you want to bring men down to simply nothing more than 'penises', which for some extraordinary reason you chose to bring into this conversation, then that is your right...but to me, that shows a somewhat derogatory attitude towards men.

And sorry, kat, but purely because I choose not to be part of The Sisterhood, does NOT make me a troll, but it does show how those in The Sisterhood choose to regard women who stand outside it.

I prefer the likes of Florence Nightingale and Edith Cavell, to someone who's a Beefeater, purely speaking personally....but each to their own.

And as for bullying...........................................

Femal physician, heal thyself....as they say.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Gervase
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 02:53 PM

I haven't seen a transcript of the tribunal hearing, and so cannot make a judgement one way or another. There is an account here by one of the sacked Yeoman Warders. It is in the Daily Mail, which makes my hackles rise immediately, but it does present the alternative view.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 03:34 PM

So who said women should have rights over men? No one. This is about someone, a woman, having the right NOT to be bullied in the workplace because of her gender.

Funnily enough, Lizzie, I don't imagine Moira is particularly bothered whether you prefer Florence Nightengale to her, but I fail to see the logic of comparing them. Different jobs, different career paths, equally valid. Don't forget that Moira spent 22 years in military service to her country - but maybe you think she's less of a woman because she chose this career path in the first place? Because she chose the armed services rather than working in a job more appropriate to a woman?

I did not reduce men to penises, but this assertion does show your inability to argue logically and to process information. I said that there was no reason she should be reduced to a puddle of glitter-spattered hormonal goo in front of every person she met who happened to be born with one, and that she shouldn't be persecuted or discriminated against by her colleagues just because she hadn't been born with one. Do keep up.

This woman has done something brave and interesting with her life, and yet you can still belittle and demean her achievements precisely because she isn't a man. How sad it must be to hate your own sex.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 03:47 PM

Gervase, I can tell you that the Daily Mail, if they have the full report, is being very economical with the truth. There were many more incidents; they haven't even mentioned the nasty notes, which happily she kept.

For the sacked bloke to imply that Moira is some sort of party-girl floozy is a lie, pure and simple. The fact that he's tried in the article to besmirch her character says quite a lot about the veracity of the rest of his statements.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 04:02 PM

"This woman has done something brave and interesting with her life, and yet you can still belittle and demean her achievements precisely because she isn't a man. How sad it must be to hate your own sex. "

I don't hate my own sex, you state that, not me...but at times, I am ashamed of some of them.

Many people to many interesting things with their lives.

Moira has wrecked the career of her fellow Beefeaters who are now going to lose their jobs and homes.

I'm sure she feels a great sense of victory, as do the rest of The Sisterhood.

I hope she enjoys her job

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 04:12 PM

So, what - they should have been allowed to wreck her career instead? When they were the aggressors? How does that work?

I think you'll find that the Beefeaters in question have homes elsewhere as well as the apartment at the Tower for which they pay a peppercorn rent. They are not homeless. But if people bully other people in the workplace, why shouldn't they lose their jobs? What should the solution be, Lizzie? Should they have been allowed to bully her out of her job? Would that have been more fair because, on some bizarre level, they have more of a right to do that job than she does?

I can assure you she feels no victory. She has had a nightmare of a time for two years. She went from being full of optimism and enthusiasm for this job to wishing she'd never applied for it. She has said that, given her time again, she wouldn't do it. Does that sound triumphant to you? She's a lovely woman, who did not deserve this. What she does deserve - what ANY woman deserves - is to be allowed is to be allowed to get on with her job, without being harrassed because of her gender.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 04:14 PM

"Moira has wrecked the career of her fellow Beefeaters"

Unbelievable. No, Lizzie, THEY wrecked their OWN careers when they decided to try and bully her out of her job.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: GUEST,Emma B
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 04:16 PM

?

Victim blaming is a typical fascist trait *

*Kriss Ravetto (2001) The unmaking of fascist aesthetics



Finally we agree on something Lizzie

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 04:16 PM

Florence NIghtingale was a nurse for 11 months only. She also spent more than half of her life in bed. Most of her time there was apparently spent writing letters.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 04:19 PM

I am sure she will enjoy it much more now there is no intimedation and bullying. Remember that this was REAL bullying, not the kind that certain parties here seem to perceive, invent and revel in.

:D (eG)

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 04:28 PM

This woman apparently has said that her hair fell out because of how she was treated.

?


The man, who she said was nasty to her was also a former soldier, you have to be to do that job, a soldier of 29 years standing, with an unblemished record.

He has stated that he didn't socialise with her after work.

Why should he?   Did that upset her? Why should it?

I can't actually see, in the information provided, anything that would make someone's hair fall out.

Geez, I've had FAR worse said about me, and to me, from some of the very folks in here who are spluttering about how mean these nasty men were to 'poor moira'.....but somehow, my hair managed to stay attached to my head...and I didn't sue everyone, nor demand that they were banished from messageboards...

I used to work with a woman in Harley Street who was absolutely vile. She went out of her way to do all she could to cause trouble. Luckily, the other lass I worked with became my best friend, so she knew what was going on. This woman would be cutesy pie to me in front of the doctors, and when Kimmy was there, but...when the doctors disappeared and Kim went home early (she finished earlier than we two) the atmosphere changed in an instant. It was scary, it was upsetting and...it was bloody tedious.

Nope, I didn't complain, nor weep in a corner, I just realised that some women are absolute bitches, and some are not....and I'm sure the same can be said for some men who behave badly too.

I didn't take her to court...and even if I had, it probably would have been laughed out and we'd both have been told to 'get on'....but hell, had she been a man, and THEN I'd have taken her to court, she/he would have been lambasted with her/his head on Traitor's Gate....

It's tough being a man in this world today.

Sorry, Sisters...

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 04:31 PM

BTW - I think there may have been underlying politcal motives in Moira's appointment. Just as there are in appointing minority races to high ranks in the police and appointing differently abled persons in positions previously denied to them. That does not mean it was wrong or that the person appointed was not the right one. But the attitude of their 'collegues' and some people here would ensure that those appointments could never be made.Which IS wrong.

D

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 04:39 PM

I can't actually see, in the information provided, anything that would make someone's hair fall out.

Do you have full access to the industraal tribunal records then or are you just going off the heresay of the popular press? The industital tribunal found for her. That should be good enough for most people. Is it any real surprise that the 'losers' in this case put their case outside the law, to the rags? If those affected feel so strongly about it why do they not keep within the law that they strove to uphold for all those years and take their employers to law for defamation of character? I think we all know the answer to that.

DeG

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 04:48 PM

They may well appeal, who knows. I should imagine that their hair is far thinner than Moira's at the moment though.

Gervase, the problem with these sorts of cases is, more often than not, that there is *no* alternative view, in the minds of some people...and *that* is what I find so worrying.

John...

Florence



"Discrimination against women is not confined to the work situation"

Neither is discrimination against men, Emma.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 04:49 PM

The report from the Daily Mail was incomplete, and the report from the sacked Beefeater is misleading and disingenuous. This was not about socialising outside of the workplace. This was about a sustained campaign of harrassment within it. Many incidents that took place are not in that report. That's why you didn't see anything in the report "that would make someone's hair fall out".

The fact is, a detailed investigation took place. It found these men guilty, and they were sacked. That doesn't happen lightly, because if they had a case for unfair dismissal, they could sue the arses off their employers.

So, regardless of hearsay and innuendo in the Daily Mail, we have a full investigation which found the men guilty. You don't get sacked for not wanting to go out with your colleagues after work, or even for not speaking to them in the hall.

Please don't speak so sneeringly of "poor Moira". To compare her victimisation to the responses to your goading, insulting and often attacking behaviour on this forum is quite unbelievable.



"It's tough being a man in this world today.

Sorry, Sisters..."

It's a hell of a lot tougher being a woman - and you're no sister of mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: jacqui.c
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 04:50 PM

Women's Hour deals with womens' issues and so would be highlighting the prison sentences from the female point of view. There are a lot of other fora that deal with the general view on prisons.

I have been subjected to workplace harassment by my male boss and I took grievance procedure to stop it. I know, first hand, just how difficult it can be to have to work with people like that day in and day out. It caused a colleague to have a nervous breakdown and I came pretty close. When you go through a nightmare like that you have two options - stop it or leave. I chose not to be driven out, as did Moira.

As I said previously, these tribunals are pretty tough - my father went through one when he was unfairly sacked. Like Moira he kept EVIDENCE to support his case and won it.

anyway, that's my last contribution to this thread - it's clear that Mz Cornish is, as usual, certain that her own view is the only correct one, even when she paints herself right into the corner. As they say - 'Don't wrestle with a pig - you'll get dirty and the pig likes it'.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 04:57 PM

Women's Hour also deals with men's issues. Surely if you women want to be included in everything, then we men have a right to expect the same respect?

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 04:57 PM

If they do not appeal or if they do appeal and the appeal is rejected will you say 'Sorry - I was worng'?

Thought not.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 04:58 PM

"Gervase, the problem with these sorts of cases is, more often than not, that there is *no* alternative view, in the minds of some people...and *that* is what I find so worrying."


The thing I find so sickening is that in your eagerness to pander to the male sex in general, while simultaneously pillioring any woman with the temerity to have a career, you are willing to take anny opportunity to have a pop at any woman who hasn't made the same choices you have.

I am not unable to see an alternative view, Lizzie, but I DO know a lot more about the facts of this case than you do because I know Moira. I know what a cool woman she is and I know the shit she's been through. For you to be so flippant and sneery about her stress-related hair loss rather shows your true colours once again. You're a nasty piece of work, lady.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: GUEST,Emma B
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 05:03 PM

'but somehow, my hair managed to stay attached to my head.'

Whatever disapprobation you have invited on this and other forums Lizzie is related to what you have chosen to post.

Someone who is continually harassed in the work place and subjected to daily stress because of their race or gender etc however has no such choice

Stress-induced hair loss is known as alopecia areata, and involves a white blood cell attack on the hair follicles.

With this type of hair loss, the hair also falls out within weeks (usually in patches), but can involve the entire scalp and even body hair.
Hair may grow back on its own, but treatment may also be required.


Although men may undergo substantial emotional effects with hair loss (indication of aging, loss of physical strength etc) it is the women who tend to find it much more difficult to handle hair loss.

From the sort of stuff that you have posted about 'femininity' Lizzie it is all too understandable that tests have shown that women were much more worried about the way they looked than men.
This leads to a deeper psychological investment in the way they look to the public.
With the loss of their hair, women tend to find a loss in self worth and self esteem.

A double whammy!

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 05:10 PM

"With the loss of their hair, women tend to find a loss in self worth and self esteem."


And you think that men don't feel that too???????

Yeesh!

I'm outta here...

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: GUEST,Emma B
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 05:15 PM

Lizzie you just never actually read other people's posts do you?

I think you will find I said that 'men undergo substantial emotional effects with hair loss'

but why bother....sigh - when have you ever let what people actually said get in the way of your rants?

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 05:17 PM

I, for one, do not need anyone to stand up for me, thank you. Particulary someone who constantly complains about harrasment and yet tries to undermine someone who has genuinely suffered it.

And now, I'll leave this thread to The Sisters

I'll believe that, and rejoice, when I see it. Which one of the sisters am I by the way? Ugly one I hope!

:D (eG)

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 05:22 PM

now for something completely different
animation of a guy and a tower, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PI-b9ye4RqY

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 05:43 PM

Page 2!

:D

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 05:50 PM

Just so long as the Ravens are still there...
................................

If you bully anyone, anywhere, you don't belong there. Including the Internet.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 05:55 PM

Mudcat should have FULL MOON ALERTS so that people can get a perspective on the swings in mood, sensitivity and rationality

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 06:03 PM

Is it a full moon, Don? I never nooooooooooooooooooticed...

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 08:23 PM

This page says the full moon is tomorrow, 2 December - but it sure looked full to me last night. There was a little personal squabble in this thread that I had to delete. Do think it was the moon, or just plain orneriness?
It's funny how those squabbles hurt my ears, even though I'm just reading them....

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: catspaw49
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 08:30 PM

Odd......No mention of Rapunzel that I can find..............Should we maybe send this Moira a drum? I mean if it'll help...............


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Folkiedave
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 04:11 AM

Lizzie, Joe has deleted one of your posts.

Tell him Lizzie, go tell him........................

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 04:34 AM

"I am not unable to see an alternative view, Lizzie, but I DO know a lot more about the facts of this case than you do because I know Moira. I know what a cool woman she is and I know the shit she's been through. For you to be so flippant and sneery about her stress-related hair loss rather shows your true colours once again. You're a nasty piece of work, lady."


No, it's strange how blind some people are.

Tell me, Joan, why do you consider it right to spread terrible and vicious words about me, on the internet, via Facebook....which for some strange reason have been removed from this thread, yet you think that it's right for two men to lose not only their jobs, but their homes as well, when your friend is apparently bullied?

Do you ever sit down and think about how YOUR behaviour has made me feel at times?

The messages that you left about me, on Facebook, for all to read, and many to think was true, are in the 'Facebook Harrassment of Mudcatters' thread on here.....I'd suggest you go and read your own words and then consider if you are any different to those who have behaved towards your friend in the manner you are now kicking up a stink about...

As John said earlier.....goose and gander.....


I guess because you are a woman, you are allowed to get away with the deeply personal crap you've written about me, but....because your friend's colleagues are men, THEY are not....

Interesting, huh?

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 04:40 AM

And Joe, sorry, but those words I put on WERE relevant to this thread, very much so, because this lady has had people put things about her on Wiki, or they changed what was on there, I'm not sure exactly what...

The point I was demonstrating, by putting Joan's words about me, from that Facebook page was that it's not only her friend who has been treated this way on the internet. And I was treated exactly the same way by Joan herself, who has never had the guts nor the good manners to own up to it, least of all apologise.

You cannot have double standards in this thread....

Or...maybe you can....

I dunno...

You're in charge of it all, Joe...you make those decisions, but I'm afraid I find it deeply hypocritical that a person who is herself responsible for some highly unpleasant behaviour towards me, is jumping up and down over the way her friend has been treated, when her friend has suffered exactly the same fate as me, in some respects.

Ho hum.....

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 04:42 AM

Oh...and I would hope that any grandchild of mine wouldn't want to be guarding the Crown Jewels. Far better to go back to the days of Robin Hood and share them out amongst the poor......

But that's just my hope... :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 04:44 AM

I even used to love it when builders used to wolf whistle at me

A woman who teetered into an open women's meeting on impractical FMQ heels said this too. She too was dripping with glitter eye shadow, sloshed on - it would seem - to "impress" the blokes she worked with (i.e. typed their illiterate outpourings and made their tea) and announced that being whistled at "made her feel better".

[btw "blokes" is an alternative word for men, not derogatory (indeed they positively like it) with (natch) blokish - i.e. unreconstructed sexist - connotations. It also, in the Montréal joual dialect, means simply an English speaking person].

Of course, she needed to feel better and I'm glad to say was persuaded to retrain and embark on a more personally fulfilling career. Not that this guarantees freedom from discrimination at work on the grounds of gender. Oh no. At around the same time, the height of the women's movement in the 70s, I was the first female journalist to report from the Wales TUC and the NUM in the run-up to the first miners' strike. Reaction ranged from bemusement to hostility from certain "brothers". When applying for a press officer post at the UK's largest union, I received a preprinted postcard which read "Dear Mr . . . " in acknowledgment. And as a freelancing subeditor at Wapping pre-Murdoch lockout I was denied shifts on the grounds that "men needed the money more".

There are, of course, certain benighted female persons who go along with this, even today. They have no conception of the bravery of pioneering women who won crucial political and labour rights nor of the importance of equality and diversity at work and indeed in life itself. As much as I have contempt for sexist men, those apologies for women who connive in this are far, far more distasteful.

I know that there are some women who seem to only derive their self-esteem from courting the approval of men, and who will even do down their own sex in the pursuit of it.

Yes, I know them too.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 04:48 AM

Lizzie, you have bullied, harangued, goaded and harrassed more than your fair share of Mudcatters, including a 15 year old girl. You are not the victim of bullying; you are, in fact, an aggressor. You start thread after thread bragging about how you regularly browbeat and berate people in your daily life, either in person or shouting at them down the phone, so we know that this abrasive and confrontational behaviour is not confined to the internet. You have been banned from numerous internet fora for your antisocial behaviour. You have posted lengthy, very nasty and defamatory blogs about various Mudcat members, not to mention Ian Anderson of fRoots magazine. You are no innocent.

To compare your antics, largely self-inflicted, with what Moira has suffered, is laughable. Now you have managed to make this thread, like so many others, all about you. Well believe it or not, for the rest of us, the world does not revolve around Lizzie Cornish. We might like to discuss certain issues without thinking about how they actually, personally, inevitably, all come back to you in the end. We might actually just like a bit of bloody peace.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: kendall
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 05:30 AM

To correct a misconception...What's good for the Goose is very painful for the Gander.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 05:33 AM

:D

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Folkiedave
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 05:37 AM

There are also women out there, the equivalent of 'blokes' who make sexist comments about and to men....who take great delight in hanging up the sexy posters of men..whilst perhaps choosing to slam into any man who fancies a Pirelli Calendar in his office. Some women are lewd and crude and sexist...and they make false accusations about men, for their own agendas.

Nver met anyone like this but clearly with the strength with which you write you have direct personal experience of this sort of thing. I mean you wouldn't write that without knowing about it personally would you?

Was it really like this where you worked? In Harley St? You worked with lewd crude and sexist women in Harley St? I am surprised they put up with that sort of thing there. I'd have expected a much more professional attitude. If I am ever to visit Harley St. I shall take a look.

In a National Trust Shop? You worked with lewd crude and sexist women in a National Trust shop? I shall look for the sexist posters next time I go in one, and perhaps even ask to look at the rest room. I am really surprised they put up with that sort of thing there. I'd have expected a much more professional attitude in a National Trust Shop.

What strange people you have worked with, wherever it was!

Just as a matter of interest and knowing your "I'm not allowing that to happen" attitude to life in general - what precisely did you do about these "lewd crude and sexist" people you met? We know you are prepared to leave your job rather than put up with things you don't like. How many times did you leave employment because of this?

We know what Moira did. What did you do?

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Folkiedave
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 05:39 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: catspaw49
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 05:42 AM

Well personally, I offered to give her a drum but y'all didn't seem to think that would help........which is kinda' sad..............

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 05:52 AM

Nope, Diane....I simply come from a time, when...if a man smiled at a woman (or whistled at her) we didn't fall over sideways in shock, horror and indignation, but many of us smiled back.

Of course, I realise that because I wasn't wearing my Doc Martens and reading Germaine Greer each night, under the bedclothes...screeching my head off about Women's Rights and spitting on any man who DARED to 'patronise' me by opening a dorr for me, this makes me barely worthy to be considered any form of human whatsoever...

But you know something, the men I know, have known and was brought up by, are all very decent human beings, who have never hurt, hit or insulted any woman at all.

Even Germaine Greer, these days, is heard to mutter 'It wasn't supposed to be this way!' from time to time...

No, Germainey, it wasn't was it, but the feminists created a divide between men and women, making out that ALL men were just Cupboard-Misogynists-in-Waiting.

What was it now....ah yes...the Male Chauvenist 'Pig'....such a very loving term that.

Well, take me back to the days where men were men and women loved them.

Yes, there have ALWAYS been bad men, just as there have always been bad women...and yes, many women WERE treated badly in times gone by....but I never was, nor any of the girls I grew up with.

And I'm sorry to disappoint you gals, but...I don't wear my sparkly eye shadow for the men, but for myself. I've never dressed for anyone but myself either...

I'm proud to say though, that if a man smiles at me, I smile back. If he opens the door for me, I thank him and say a few kind words too.

And Joan, may I kindly suggest that you go back and read many of your own posts....and especially bear in mind what you said to Gervase about how the Daily Mail only reports some of the story and is always lenient with the truth.

Interesting too that if *I* had posted a link to the Daily Mail about this story, all merry hell would have broken loose about it, about me supporting a facist paper....about my father being likewise, etc....yet Gervase got away with it sooooo lightly..

Weird, huh?

And I'll let you know how I'm getting on with South West Water soon...I spoke to one of their executives the other day...Yeesh! Now THAT was a phone call and a half!



And now...back to bullying.........and make up....and BAD women who wear it.....because Gawd, they should all be hanged, drawn and quatered, and their sparkly faces put on a pole inside The Tower...eh?

Of course, the male Beefeaters probably wouldn't dream of putting the poor feminine Wenches heads on poles...but...er...........

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 05:53 AM

They're not gonna fall into your snare, Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 06:09 AM

"You have posted lengthy, very nasty and defamatory blogs about various Mudcat members, not to mention Ian Anderson of fRoots magazine. You are no innocent."


And Ian Anderson has said very many things about me, too...Joan.

Why, he even lets you refer to me as a 'fuckwit' on his site...

Cool, huh?

He also tried to interfere with Seth Lakeman's career in the days BEFORE Seth became fRoots Pin Up Boy on his magazine....

Heck, Seth sells magazines doesn't he! Who'd have thought that Ian Anderson after ALL the things he said about Seth and Show of Hands would have finally come out on their side.

I suggest you take your words over to Ian's board and tell him off for the way he used to go out of his way to abuse me....then thank him for doing so, because he taught me how to stand up for myself, just as Diane did too.

Thank oooooo

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: catspaw49
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 06:22 AM

Yeah JM, you're right once again. Do you think this Ian Anderson character would like one? The rent on the warehouse is coming due, no to mention Anne's upstairs loft.....................

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 06:33 AM

Amazing, isn't it? Somebody holds a door open for lizziecornish and all's well with the world. This, I imagine, is because her vision is so obscured by the eye glitter and batting eyelashes that she remains wholly unaware of the legions, the "monstrous regiments" of pioneers who, for decades passed, have pushed tirelessly against the virtual swing doors of patriarchy to achieve the social, employment and political rights that she accepts thoughtlessly today as though they just fell from the sky.

Moira Cameron was the first woman to achieve appointment to a job that she really wanted and was eminently qualified to carry out. Two benighted male persons who tried and failed to bully her out of it have been sacked, according to the law and by due tribunal process. And who does lizziecornish think is right? Distasteful is far too mild a word for this muddled lack of logic.

I have very little expectation that lizziecornish will heed my reading recommendations, but for an exposition of the roots of feminism and gender equality I direct her first not to Ms Greer but to John Stuart Mill.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: bubblyrat
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 06:33 AM

The Armed Forces generally and traditionally are hotbeds of lewd,crude and sexist people.It goes with the territory.Moira,more than anybody,would know that,especially after spending 22 years or whatever in that environment. I believe that women are still not permitted,in Great Britain,to engage in hand-to-hand combat in the Infantry or Royal Marine Commandos,or to serve in the crews of SSBNs (Nuclear Submarines, but probably ANY submarine,to be honest ---I don't know ??).The point is, she knew the score,was / is a tough cookie, and would have been well equipped to deal with any "hassle" that may have transpired.
                  Of course,there can be no excuses whatsoever for the behaviour of some of her male colleagues at the Tower ,and I ,personally,would have been very pleased to have a, or some ,female colleague / s if I were lucky enough to be employed in such a high profile and historic position. BUT....Moira is the first of her kind,in this instance,and there were BOUND to be some difficulties to be overcome ; look what happened (inexcusably,of course,but still inevitably) ,to Lady Astor on becoming the first female MP.
      I think that, really,YOU should have been the first female Beefeater, Ruth !!

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 06:36 AM

"To compare your antics, largely self-inflicted, with what Moira has suffered, is laughable."


Er...I was comparing YOUR antics, actually. Stop spinning what I said, Joan. I said that the words YOU put on Facebook, about me, were similar to Moira's 'internet experience' where one of the men now sacked went to her Wiki page...Of course, I doubt that even he said the things that you said about me, but heyho.....

And, if you can find any words of mine where I've told people that you are a pyscho, that you are dull, thick, or a fuckwit, or have insulted your child's intelligence, your ex-husband, threatened to talk to your ex-husband about you, as you did to me, then please, feel free to put it all down here.

And the '15 year old girl' accusation you've put down there is, I presume, your daughter...who signed herself 'Daisybell' (I think) in a thread about Education. Nope, I didn't bully her at all....but I did point out how lucky she was to go to an all girl's school where she was immensely happy...and told her that many people aren't so lucky.


"You have been banned from numerous internet fora for your antisocial behaviour."

Nope, I was banned from the BBC because of a small group of people who bombarded the BBC with complaints about me, to the point where they could no longer afford to deal with those compaints. Even the BBC themselves referred to it as a 'witch hunt'...It was out and out bullying, nothing less.

And er...YOU guys are making this thread about me, with your continuous put downs and lies.

So I have a different point of view? We are all allowed our points of views...and all allowed to comments on the views of others...

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Folkiedave
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 06:40 AM

Some women are lewd and crude and sexist...and they make false accusations about men, for their own agendas.

I take it that since you have posted twice since I challenged you to substantiate this - it was a load of horlicks. There's new. Lizzie writes horlicks.

There may be some new readers who will wonder what Lizzie will do next. We often get a departure at this time of year. She is likely to flounce off.

In fact she may use words like she has used before....

I can no longer take the nastiness, the unpleasantness and the hypocrisy that I see so often and which is continually directed at me at every turn on here. The last thread I started is another perfect example, I expect THAT's my fault as well...hey ho...

That was December 2005 by the way. Hey ho indeed. She was back shortly afterwards.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 06:42 AM

Damn! Joe - you made a mess of my 'Page 2!' post and deleted the post where Lizzie says she is not posting to this thread any more.

Ah well, the best laid plans of mice and men...

DeG

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 06:43 AM

"Amazing, isn't it? Somebody holds a door open for lizziecornish and all's well with the world. This, I imagine, is because her vision is so obscured by the eye glitter and batting eyelashes that she remains wholly unaware of the legions, the "monstrous regiments" of pioneers who, for decades passed, have pushed tirelessly against the virtual swing doors of patriarchy to achieve the social, employment and political rights that she accepts thoughtlessly today as though they just fell from the sky."


So, you never read my Myspace blog on 'Bums, Boobs and Brains' then?

:0)

You know, it DOES cheer me up when men open doors for me, even more at age 54! chuckle...

It cheers me up because it's lovely to see men still wanting to be courteous and kind, thoughtful and pleasant....and it puts me in a good mood for the rest of the day. I always go out of my way to thank them profusely and tell them how kind they are, and how wonderful it is to see that 'the Age of Chivalry' is not yet dead...

I like men, as human beings. Get over it.

I most certainly don't see them as er....'penises' as Joan referred to them above. Yikes! How much more insulting does it get!

Over to you, Spaw, on that one, because methinks you'll have a very witty comment about to burst forth... ;0)




Oh, and thanks, Diane, but I have never seen myself as 'a gender' although those who DO have their own agendas would see me as precisely that.

I'm simply....me.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 06:50 AM

Lizzie, you have made wholesale, unsolocited and unwarranted public attacks on two of my employers and one organisation of which I am a director. Two of those organisations you have no direct experience of, but you publicly attacked them anyway purely because they were associated with me. You tried to undermine me professionally, and, if you were anything other than the acknowledged ignorant mad hysteric that you are, could have put my career at risk. You knew this, and in fact I believe it was your express intention to bring my job into the argument to frighten me off disagreeing with you.

As I said earlier, you are a very nast piece of work.

I see you as far more akin to Moira's bullies than to Moira herself.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 06:51 AM

fuckwit

This is a specific term, meaning terminally "clueless".
It is not abusive, merely concisely descriptive.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 06:52 AM

"I most certainly don't see them as er....'penises' as Joan referred to them above. Yikes! How much more insulting does it get!"

I have already addressed this above. That is not what I said. But at least we know what's on your brain.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: GREEN WELLIES
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 07:09 AM

Name calling and just no liking certain people you are forced to work with is completely different to bullying.

Workplace bullying can be compared to mental torture, and the events Lizzie recounts in the descriptions of her various workplaces does not even come close.

I have witnessed woman on woman bullying, and it not only affected the victim, but scared the hell out of a number of other members of staff. They were so frightened of becoming the next target they did absolutely nothing. It went on for years, snide remarks, deliberate undermining, wrecking work, changing office procedures when the victim was on holiday and of course not passing on the information, I could go on and on. One day I saw the victim sitting at her desk, shaking. I was so convinced that she was going to have a heart attack that I went straight to my boss and reported it and action was taken straight away. Oh boy, then it was my turn. The bully made it clear to the rest of the staff that if they spoke to me one of them would be next, so I worked alone and in silence for weeks, until I had enough and approached the bully in person in front of everyone in the office. I made it clear that I was in no way scared of her and it would be in her best interests to get on with her work and leave people alone. She was asked by management to apologise for what she had done, she refused and was asked to leave there and then.

Lizzie a stand up row or difference of opinion or just a plain dislike is not bullying. Bullying is done quietly, behind backs, its terrifying and to witness it is also very frightening.

Moira is incredibly brave not only to stand her ground but to actually report it is also extremely brave. She had no idea when she reported it how it could go. It could have got alot worse - you should never assume that the person you are reporting it to is necessarily on the side of the victim.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: catspaw49
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 07:21 AM

"But at least we know what's on your brain."

I can't figure why anyone, male or female, would want a dick on their brain. Its just flat out the wrong place to put one of them. Now there are a lot of other places that are far more suited not to mention enjoyable........for everyone. Lizzie always strikes me as one who likes a good time so I don't think she's the dick-head type..............although that species is not unknown here at the 'Cat.


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: GREEN WELLIES
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 07:27 AM

My mom always God was a woman with a great sence of humor, who else would design a bloke with all that hanging about on the outside !!

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Smedley
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 07:36 AM

This thread is an absolute hoot. More! More!!

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: kendall
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 08:09 AM

Lizzie, I have always held the door for women. Some doors in public places have springs that can be a problem to women, especially the elderly.
I also hold the door to let my dog out, or in. Am I patronizing him?

Ruth, old Maine proverb: "It's useless to play the violin in front of an ox."

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 08:16 AM

Wayhay - Lizzies original may have been deleted but my response is still there. From Ms C 2 or 3 days ago -

And now, I'll leave this thread to The Sisters

She is still here though. Doesn't surpise me in the least.

DeG

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 08:22 AM

Wise words, kendall.


Ta ra.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 08:45 AM

"Lizzie, you have made wholesale, unsolocited and unwarranted public attacks on two of my employers and one organisation of which I am a director. Two of those organisations you have no direct experience of, but you publicly attacked them anyway purely because they were associated with me."


You tried to undermine me professionally, and, if you were anything other than the acknowledged ignorant mad hysteric that you are, could have put my career at risk. You knew this, and in fact I believe it was your express intention to bring my job into the argument to frighten me off disagreeing with you."



Joan, for what it's worth, YOU put my family's lives at risk, by revealing my real name on the BBC, over and over, along with Diane and Ralph Jordan. It broke all the BBC rules, and it went against my wishes, but did you give a fuck? You also have demeaned me over and over in here...

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 08:52 AM

Bugger it...posted too early....


"Lizzie, you have made wholesale, unsolocited and unwarranted public attacks on two of my employers and one organisation of which I am a director. Two of those organisations you have no direct experience of, but you publicly attacked them anyway purely because they were associated with me."

I've not a clue what you're talking about there, or who...

If you mean...yawn...Cecil Sharp House....well I was saying YEARS before you ever turned up, what a turn off it was....so my opinion on that has nowt to do with you at all....

Gawd, Cecil bloomin' Sharp....yawn....

"You tried to undermine me professionally,"

Nope, you've done that yourself, with saying what you did about Show of Hands music, despite being a Festival Director. I merely pointed out what a crap and highly unprofessional way it was to talk about artists...


"and, if you were anything other than the acknowledged ignorant mad hysteric that you are,"

Good to see you're not into bullying then.

Hey, maybe I need to get Moira in here! :0)


"could have put my career at risk."

Well, to be honest, I'd not have had you as a Festival orgainiser, if I'd been in charge...but hey ho, there ya go...and besides, Show of Hands say they prefer the vitriol to the championing, so you vitriol away, with my blessings...Coochee..


"You knew this, and in fact I believe it was your express intention to bring my job into the argument to frighten me off disagreeing with you."

Nope, sorry, but I didn't have 'an ulterior motive'....Gawd, that would mean I'd have to have intelligence, and as you tell me over and over, I ain't nowt but thick...


Ho Hum


I expect Moira's starting to realise that she got off a bit lightly if she's reading this thread.


Someone send for a Beefeateress, fast!

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 09:14 AM

"Well, to be honest, I'd not have had you as a Festival orgainiser, if I'd been in charge..."

You in charge? Well, happily, there's no world in which that would ever be likely to happen, but just to put things in perspective, I was hired as Artistic Director at a time when the festival's future was in serious doubt because of mounting financial debts and a continuing inability to make the festival hit break-even. This year, thanks to tight budgetary control and improved programming which resulted in substantial increases in ticket sales, we turned a nice little profit, rather than the three previous years of substantial financial losses. A few more years like this one, and the festival may well be out of the woods and have a long-term future. So maybe it's just as well you're not making the decisions, eh, Lizzie? By the way, how is Torquay Folk Week coming along?

I'm intrigued to know how your families lives were "put at risk" by your real name being published on a BBC messageboard (which was not done by me in the first place, by the way - check your facts). Are you in some sort of witness protection programme? Hiding from the mob? Are you in MI5? The world wants to know.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 09:23 AM

"but did you give a fuck?"

Oh dear, Cruding Away...what happened - did you get bored of Jane Austen?

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Folkiedave
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 09:25 AM

I can't post all of this because it is too long. But here is what Lizzie Cornish 1 said (writing as Lizzie Cornish) a while ago.

From: Lizzie Cornish - PM
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 05:00 AM

So from now on, the folk world can sing to it's heart delight. Safe in the knowledge that I'll no longer write about the music that I love.

The words I have written you'll never take away from me, as I said above. But I'll write no more words, because I am sick to death of the petty, spiteful, narrow-minded, unwelcoming world that I have had the great misfortune to come across in the English Traditional world in particular.

I want no more part of it...ever

So that's twice Lizzie had threatened to stop writing. Go on Lizzie - do it.......

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: GREEN WELLIES
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 09:46 AM

Flippin' 'eck !

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: GUEST,Emma B
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 10:56 AM

Lizzie, why do you continually associate mysandry with feminism?

Feminism is 'The advocacy of women`s rights on the grounds of sexual equality' (OED)

Feminism does not seek to oppress men - it seeks to achieve a balanced relationship between women and men

THIS feminist hates misogyny, not men!

In fact I'm quite happy to smile and thank people of either gender who hold a door open for me and equally pleased to recieve the same from those I've held a door open for too if I happen to reach it first.
I don't expect anyone to have to perform this action because I'm the 'weaker sex' thanks :)

I would never criticise or turn a 'good deed' down but I believe it is sexist when you begin to treat people differently because of their gender as much as it is racist to treat people differently according to the colour of their skin
I would assume the man holding the door for me would hold the door for anyone else.

According to a study last year three researchers from the University of Houston found that contrary to popular beliefs, feminists reported lower levels of hostility toward men than did non feminists.

abstract

Basically the authors conclude that feminists feel less hostility toward men than women who operate within traditional gender roles because they are exposed less to 'power differentials' within those roles.

and btw
I would expect any group of women who conducted a similar long term gratuitous hate campaign against a sole male colleague based on his gender to be similarly disciplined.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 11:15 AM

I would assume the man holding the door for me would hold the door for anyone else.>>>

A somewhat complex question is raised here, regarding conventional courtesies to which one has been brought up in conflict with expectations of full equality. I am an old man now [77], and young people will still sometimes offer me a seat in a crowded underground train in London. When it is a young man, I consider it civil on my part to accept with a smile and grateful thanks. But when it is a young woman, I explain that, tho grateful and appreciative, it would just fly in the face of all my condiditioning to accept a seat from a lady and beg her to resume the seat without being offended by my refusal. I will also offer my own seat to an older woman or one with children, but not to a younger woman.

I am unsure how these principles of mine would stand up to the scrutiny of GuestEmmaB.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 11:54 AM

It's the metaphorical stiff door and the impenetrable glass ceiling that needs to concern us, not who gets to sit down on the Circle line. If someone offers me a seat I worry that I must be looking rough and betraying my age.

Denying women promotion or resenting their employment in the first place on the grounds of gender is one aspect of misogyny. Women continuing to struggle for equality in employment are fighting for a basic human right. It is not misandry.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Smedley
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 11:56 AM

Don't know about Emma, but under my scrutiny (and if it matters I'm male & very early 50s) your gender differentiation in accepting/refusing a seat seems at best quaint & at worst masochistic. Why turn down the chance to be more comfortable on account of the generous person's genitalia???

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 12:17 PM

It's how some on'us was brung up, Smedley.
My policy nowadays is to offer my seat to anyone, regardless of their age or genitalia, who looks as though they need it more than I do. Otherwise, they can bugger off, I got there first. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 12:24 PM

"I would never criticise or turn a 'good deed' down but I believe it is sexist when you begin to treat people differently because of their gender as much as it is racist to treat people differently according to the colour of their skin
I would assume the man holding the door for me would hold the door for anyone else"


You see, that's the bit I just don't get. I am really *happy* to be a woman. And I don't consider myself to be the same as a man, in many ways. But I don't see this as a threat. I'm not out to prove that 'I can do anything a man can do' because I know I can't and besides, I don't want to.

I've never seen myself as 'the weaker sex' at all, although I fully appreciate that men are a damn sight stronger physically than women..and they're that way because nature made them that way, as She, I presume, had it in mind for men and women to do different things...That's why, until comparitively recently in our history, the men went out and hunted, built the houses etc...and the women raised the children....

Nowadays, everything's gone arse over whatsit..and women are out to prove they're every bit as good as men.

Well, what the f*ck is that all about?

Of course we're every bit as good, but not at the same things, that's all.

This crazines of "Hey, there's just men doing that job...and ****I**** want to do it!!" drives me a little bats at times.

It's like the women who wanted to be soldiers in The Sealed Knot, carrying 16ft pikes into battle, because "Hey, I'm just as good as a man!"....until one day, a woman got one of those pikes through her spleen and so...women were banned from the battlefield..Shock! Horror! I was happy to be a Camp Follower, tending the 'wounded' and doing what Camp Followers did (up to a limit, of course) ;0)..but no, there were some gals who just had to put the soldiers outfits on and soldier..

I guess if you want to do that, well...that's OK, but killing people goes against creating them, which is, whether women like it or not, 'what women do' in many cases...


Oh, and Dave, you may have not noticed, but I rarely write about the music that I love any longer.   I rarely even go into the music section. If that makes you feel that you've 'won' something, then it just shows me what a sad situation the English folk world is in, because to feel some sort of victory has been scored by getting people NOT to write about the music is very sad indeed....and it explains totally why so many good people walk right away from English folk music.

I didn't realise that the success of Sidmouth was entirely down to you, Joan, I do apologise most humbly. HOW could I not have realised that...(raises hand to head yet again!)   Good to hear a profit was made this time round though, as last I heard, they were worried sick about it, and certainly the town wasn't as full as in many years past...In fact, since the new team took over from Steve Heap and had that first very successful year, it hasn't been the same...and where once you had to queue to get along the seafront, as it was so festooned with musicians and dancers, now you can walk along unhindered, all week long..

Sidmouth's yours now, so I hope you enjoy it. It's nowt to do with me any longer. I'd got to the point where i couldn't wait for it to be packed up and out of town...That's what you and your pals did. Again though, if that pleases you, it shows me how sad your world is.

I have new music to love now...and it's music that's not played by stressed out people who are always so controlling or live in fear of upsetting those who want to control. It doesn't come with rules or regulations either, but is just played for the love of it and left to be loved by those who appreciate it.

Good luck with Show of Hands..and I'm still waiting to read some reviews from you about them...and from their other new fans on Mudcat and fRoots who gained so much respect for them recently. I'm sure your reivews will be excellent. Please don't keep us waiting too long though.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 12:30 PM

"Feminism does not seek to oppress men - it seeks to achieve a balanced relationship between women and men"


Nope....it does seek to oppress men, in my opinion...and it has been bloody successful at it too.

Far from creating a 'balanced relationship', it has created a gulf and where once, many men were very protective of women, now they feel they can't be, because the woman would tell them off for 'treating her as the weaker sex'

What a load of ballyhoo!

Bring back Sir Walter Raleigh and The Men with Capes! :0)

Now, if you women will excuse me, but I have to go and touch up my sparkles, lipstick and kohl, because after all, it's a woman's duty to always look her best...

:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 12:42 PM

You're on fine form today Lizzie.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 12:47 PM

Thank you, John. ;0)

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 01:00 PM

"I didn't realise that the success of Sidmouth was entirely down to you, Joan, I do apologise most humbly."

Well, in terms of the financial turnaround I had rather a lot to do with it, yes. Tight budgetary control - that was the production and the artistic directors working together. Reducing the artistic budget by £30k and still delivering a strong artistic programme: that was my responsibility. A turnaround in performance of the Bulverton: achieved through reduced costs and more ambitious programming. Increased ticket sales across the programme: that was one of my targets. Increased fundraising: the Board, but I brought in some sponsorship as well.



"certainly the town wasn't as full as in many years past"

We must have attended different festivals. The town was rammed. You couldn't get accomodation for love nor money, and the ticket sales revenue increased substantially.


"In fact, since the new team took over from Steve Heap and had that first very successful year, it hasn't been the same..."

No. That'll be because there's no longer an arena holding many thousands of people. Sidmouth is over 50 years old. The Mrs Casey years were one phase of its life. This is another. It's been through a fair few. Hopefully with the way we're currently working, the future will be secured so that it has many more years to come.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: catspaw49
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 01:07 PM

100

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 01:10 PM

What, no drum roll Spaw?

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: catspaw49
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 01:25 PM

I just finished packing some up to send to the jackasses folks on this thread so I need to make a warehouse run for more. Used up an entire three skid load on this one!


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 02:04 PM

Hey Spaw, how do you put a line through a word? I'm a duffer with HTML. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: GUEST,Emma B
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 02:09 PM

"You see, that's the bit I just don't get. I am really *happy* to be a woman. And I don't consider myself to be the same as a man, in many ways. But I don't see this as a threat. I'm not out to prove that 'I can do anything a man can do' because I know I can't and besides, I don't want to."

Know what Lizzie? I'm very happy to be a woman too!

However I don't expect to be 'protected' from owning and controlling my own property, choosing a partner, be prevented from seeing my own children should he so decide and the myriad of other things women were 'protected' from by men in your mythical Golden Age

However I think there are many tasks in this post industrial society (ie the REAL world not the one of hurling spears at mammoths) we live in that I could do just as competantly as a male colleague and I would expect to receive the same opportunities to do them the same renumeration and prospects of promotion too.

By the same token I welcome the participation of men who wish to enter the traditional 'female' employments of nursing etc.

equal but different - yes :)

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 02:19 PM

Well, in terms of the financial turnaround I had rather a lot to do with it, yes. Tight budgetary control - that was the production and the artistic directors working together. Reducing the artistic budget by £30k and still delivering a strong artistic programme: that was my responsibility. A turnaround in performance of the Bulverton: achieved through reduced costs and more ambitious programming. Increased ticket sales across the programme: that was one of my targets. Increased fundraising: the Board, but I brought in some sponsorship as well."


Well, there ya go...see, it WAS you all along! Yeesh, if ONLY those guys had brought you in earlier, eh?



"certainly the town wasn't as full as in many years past"

We must have attended different festivals. The town was rammed. You couldn't get accomodation for love nor money, and the ticket sales revenue increased substantially.<<<

Yup, we sure must have. Twasn't just me who noticed it though, but hell, what do I know, I only lived there for 10 years...not a clue about Sidmouth, almost as dumb as I am about folk music, huh?


"In fact, since the new team took over from Steve Heap and had that first very successful year, it hasn't been the same..."

No. That'll be because there's no longer an arena holding many thousands of people. Sidmouth is over 50 years old. The Mrs Casey years were one phase of its life. This is another. It's been through a fair few. Hopefully with the way we're currently working, the future will be secured so that it has many more years to come. <<<

Hmmmm....of course, you being the main success behind Sidmouth an' all now, this probably has nothing to do with it, but.........er...The Arena wasn't up and running during the first year after Steve Heap left, nor has it been since. That first year was a success, despite all the crap on here and the BBC that was done by people such as....er...your mate Ian Anderson and...er...Diane, who did all in their power to see Sidmouth fail, because...unkown to me, they wanted it to be run by their 'own folks' a couple of years after Steve had left, wanting the town to live without it for a few times, to realise what a gem they had...So the anti-Sidmouth brigade took over the messageboards and we went into battle over. Ask Ian, he'll remember, I had him all wrapped up in his cosy blanket whilst I pushed him up and down the seafront in his mobility scooter, as he said he was getting old and wanted to see festivals abroad, whilst he still had the time...It was an absolute hoot, until the Moaning Minnies took over..and moaned, moaned, moaned...

But, Sidmouth carried on....and it carried on because of one man, actually, Joan. One man who put £100,000 of his own money into Folk Week...and for that, he was lambasted by the manageress of Bellowhead and accused of being a misogynist by Diane.....

Without Gordon, you'd have no Sidmouth to be part of, to crow over.

Gordon became a victim of women gone mad, and oh, how the mud stuck to him! It was the most shameful of things...and if you don't know about it, then I suggest you ask Derek, 'cos he'll know. I know because my ex-husband, to whom I was still married back then, was one of Sidmouth's Directors....doing his bit too, and he continued to do work for Sidmouthh for a few years after that.

Gordon stepped down, probably because he never really got over what happened to him, how lies and vicious words were spread about him....

Another example of appalling internet bullying and some women wanting to get their way, no matter what the outcome to those concerned...

Without Gordon, there would now be no Sidmouth, and those who chose to do what they did, should damn well hang their heads in shame.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 02:27 PM

"However I don't expect to be 'protected' from owning and controlling my own property, choosing a partner, be prevented from seeing my own children should he so decide and the myriad of other things women were 'protected' from by men in your mythical Golden Age"


I don't know any men who would want to do that. That's my point. You can't blame ALL men for the few bad ones.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 02:44 PM

For the record, I wasn't at Sidmouth in 2005, nor (I don't think) was Ian Anderson. It clashed with WOMAD that year. The original idea had been to rest Sidmouth for a year (as had happened several years earlier at Beverley in the face of a management changeover) because Steve Heap's withdrawal left only a bare year to organise the next one and past experience showed that it took 18 months.

For some reason, the details of which I am unaware, some people decided to take the tremendous risk of steaming ahead anyway and put on something called a "folk week" the following year. One incident during it which I did get to hear about was that Bellowhead's then manager was insulted outrageously in the Ham green room by someone who refused to "take instructions from a woman".

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 02:51 PM

You know, people. I realy do think it is time we all gave up and got a drum roll from Spaw. Mind you, I prefer a fig roll and maybe the blues fans out there may be happier with a jelly roll but a plain old drum one will do for me. Got any spare, spaw?

After all arguing with someone who can always see the other persons point of view, leaves when they say they are going to, never resorts to foul language or bullying and only ever posts on BS threads is no fun. I can see now that the world is run completely by rabid feminists who would cut the tackle off every man in the blink of an eye. Moira obviouly deserved to be picked on, simply because she is a friend of Joan. The whole country has gone to the dogs since those good old days when we all sang around the piano to the sound of German doodlebugs and all music is folk music. Apart from folk music. Which is under the control of Shturmbanhfuhrer Kecil Sharpe It all makes sense now!

My brain hurts...

DeG

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 02:53 PM

Lizzie, everything you have posted above veers between gross distortion and downright lies. You have once again defamed people you don't know concerning incidents you never witnessed and that were absolutely nothing to do with you, based on third party information and hearsay. It's a bit of a pattern.

But I am not going to hand you any more opportunities to damage the festival, because you've done enough of that already with your diatribes and rants over the years. But one thing I do know: when the festival really needed people down in Sidmouth to offer practical help, such as leafletting and flyering etc, or stuffing the proverbial envelopes, or helping to drum up local sponsorship, you never lifted a finger. Not one. So much for the Sidmouth's loudest "champion".


Do keep us posted with news about Torquay Folk Week, and your radio programme, and all those other things you're going to prove you can do so much better than the rest of us, once you manage to tear yourself away from your computer screen.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: GUEST,Emma B
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 05:29 PM

"However I don't expect to be 'protected' from owning and controlling my own property, choosing a partner, be prevented from seeing my own children should he so decide and the myriad of other things women were 'protected' from by men in your mythical Golden Age"

"I don't know any men who would want to do that. That's my point. You can't blame ALL men for the few bad ones."

Lizzie I'm not talking about a few 'bad' folks here I'm describing the lot of all 'protected' women in the UK before the end of the 19thC


Sorry for the thread drift and lack of drums but for Lizzie's information and to put the ongoing movement for equality in work, education etc into perspective......


Traditionally, women lost all rights to own property or exercise contract rights after marriage; before marriage, such rights usually belonged not to the woman, but to her father.

Prior to the Married Women's Property Act 1884 married women were classed as 'femmes covert' and a woman's personal property was transferred automatically to her husband on marriage

During their 'coverture' women had no legal testamentary rights at all in relation to real estate. Any personal property of a woman which she had before the marriage, or acquired after the marriage, became her husband's absolutely, and as such, he had the right to leave it by will.
Only with her husband's permission could a wife make a will leaving personal property - even if it had been hers before her marriage. Moreover, his consent only applied to a particular will and this consent had to be strictly proved. His consent could be revoked even after her death. The only exception to this was her right to make a will leaving her 'paraphernalia' - clothing and personal ornaments.

Of course anyone familiar with Jane Austin like yourself would have come across this situation in literature.

The accepted reasoning was that the career for women was marriage.

"To get ready for courtship and marriage a girl was groomed like a racehorse, the qualities a young Victorian gentlewoman needed, were to be innocent, virtuous, biddable, dutiful and be ignorant of intellectual opinion.

Whether married or single all Victorian gentlewomen were expected to be weak and helpless, a fragile delicate flower incapable of making decisions beyond selecting the menu"

During this era if a wife separated from her husband she had no rights of access to see her children whatever the cause of the separation
A divorced woman had no chance of acceptance in society again.

The first wave of feminism focused on education, employment and marital law; one of the causes they vigorously pursued became the Married Women's Property Committee of 1855 they collected 26,000 signatures to change the law for all women married or single.

Another example of 'some women wanting to get their way'

As always some women were not always supportive of each other's efforts, and often distanced themselves from these pioneer feminists. but nevertheless reaped the benefits of the Married Women's Property Act 1884 as you now have the right to your children Lizzie!

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Folkiedave
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 06:40 PM

Oh, and Dave, you may have not noticed, but I rarely write about the music that I love any longer.   I rarely even go into the music section. If that makes you feel that you've 'won' something, then it just shows me what a sad situation the English folk world is in, because to feel some sort of victory has been scored by getting people NOT to write about the music is very sad indeed....and it explains totally why so many good people walk right away from English folk music.

Actually Lizzie there is a huge revival going on at the moment. I thought that was the inspiration for you organising a festival in Torquay? How is that going? And the radio programme? How is that coming along? I do not know any good people who have walked away from english folk music, on the other hand I know a lot of people coming into it.

In the past couple of weeks I have attended packed concerts by Bella Hardy and Spiers and Boden and been to four packed out traditional carol events. I understand the Unthanks concert in Sheffield Memorial Hall last night did well but I cannot comment for certain.

Kerfuffle's latest tour is selling tickets hand over fist and on December 19th in Sheffield Martin Simpson and Roy Bailey and Donald Grant sold out a 950 seater venue as the tickets went on sale. (Discovered Donald Grant yet?)

Most folk festivals last year ran on budget and even though it was a difficult year most survived.

BBC are showing a programme about Bellowhead, filmed a few days ago who along with the Unthanks have been on Jools Holland. Stuart McConie plays a lot of English folk music. Community radio stations are filling the gaps the BBC leaves.

Radio 2 is devoting a day to Pete Seeger to celebrate his 90th birthday and they are also doing a series of four programmes on traditional carols on December 21st-24th.

Looks like you leaving has rather improved things to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Lizzie Cornish 1 - PM
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 05:10 PM

I'm outta here...

Sorry I thought you meant that! Clearly you didn't. Lizzie writes things she doesn't mean. There's news.

And I'll let you know how I'm getting on with South West Water soon...I spoke to one of their executives the other day...Yeesh! Now THAT was a phone call and a half!

You will let us know?

One thing is for absolute certainty. You haven't let us know about your own mother-in-law, (what did happen to Vi? you have been asked loads of times); the people who were searched in Boots; the national strike you were going to organise; The National Trust you were going to sort out; to the folk festival, the radio show, and countless other episodes which not only have we forgotten but you have too.

Will you tell us why this one should be any different?

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 04:28 AM

"But one thing I do know: when the festival really needed people down in Sidmouth to offer practical help, such as leafletting and flyering etc, or stuffing the proverbial envelopes, or helping to drum up local sponsorship, you never lifted a finger. Not one. So much for the Sidmouth's loudest "champion".


Ah, but I was helping....in the background....very much so...

Yup, I once was Siddy's Champion, but I've passed that on to you, as a special treat. I'll never write another word about that festival again, so you can all rest easy...No more 15,000 words to inspire and delight...just a silence, as you all wanted.

Who have I 'defamed'....?

Vi's fine, thanks, Dave. She has her handles, which were given to her by a wellwisher, free of charge. Torbay Care Trust are still dealing with me...and I with them. And many local people wrote in, more offering handles, one person even sending money to Vi anonymously, with a very sweet note......It restored her faith that there are some people out there who still care...

And now, Dave...I'll leave you to add that to your notes, and pull it all apart too.

And thanks, Emma, but I'm well aware of how some women were once treated. Luckily, I was raised by a man who protected and loved the women in his life and who treated all women as ladies, called them all ladies...so I know that not all men are evil little bastards, as some women still like to think of them...Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 04:48 AM

"Ah, but I was helping....in the background....very much so..."

What, by writing endless streams of crap on the internet? By engaging in pitched battles with people who didn't have the "right attitiude" and telling them not to come to the festival (and consequently not buy tickets and contribute vital income) if they couldn't see it your way? I've seen those messages, Lizzie. You never had any right to be speaking on Sidmouth's behalf, and you did it more potential damage with your endless confrontations and attempts to put off the "moaning minnies" who might actually have bought tickets than any possible good that might have come of your dubious "support".

"I'll never write another word about that festival again, so you can all rest easy...No more 15,000 words..."

Thank god for that. Please stick to it.


"Who have I 'defamed'....?"

Bellowhead's ex-manager, for a start. You do not know what happened because you were not there. She has actually come on line in the past to challenge your version of events and to ask you to stop spreading it. So stop it. You do not have any authority to speak about anything that happened at that time because you were not directly involved with the festival and never have been.

As I say, when help was needed, you offered none. None. So please in future channel all the wonderful practical skills you acquired in writing about Sidmouth on messageboards to help you focus on Torquay Folk Week. What are the dates? Have you got your headliners in place yet? Have you applied for your licencing and got all your insurance together? What about the company providing your infrastructure - are they contracted yet? Have you done your H&S and Risk Assessments for those concerts in the caves you were so excited about? Have you booked your first adverts yet? There are some important print deadlines coming up - have you got them in your diary? These are all things I would try to do before Christmas, if I were you.

Good luck!

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: GREEN WELLIES
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 04:56 AM

And Ralph McTell sold out the Artrix in Bromsgrove, and Whalebone filled Feckenham Village Hall. And you can never get tickets for Christy Moore at the Symphone Hall in Birmingham even if you were to strip naked and run up and down New Street screaming 'gimme a ticket' which I may actually do next year !!

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Folkiedave
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 05:13 AM

just a silence, as you all wanted

Really? Having left Mudcat on a number of occasions, and promised to leave this thread why do I not believe you.

I'll leave you to add that to your notes, and pull it all apart too.

Since you were happy to complain that people were not getting involved in folk music because you left the BBC board, perhaps you would like to try and explain the upsurge of interest. I think the two are connected. Don't you think we should be told?

That'll do for starters. Then we'll move on to the Torquay Folk Festival.

I am genuinely interested how you are getting on. Should I mention it on my radio show yet? Happy to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: bubblyrat
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 05:25 AM

A lot of you seem to be confusing the words "gender" and "sex". Yes, I know that the word "gender" has become,for some extraordinary reason,popular for describing a person's SEX, but that doesn't make it right and proper . Go on --be different !! Refer to peoples' sex, as it does on Birth Certificates,and leave GENDER to grammarians ! Unless the word SEX is un-feminist, or "dirty",or something ? Beats me !

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Folkiedave
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 05:29 AM

I think it is because SEX is something they use to carry coal in Cheltenham and people are distinguishing between the two.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 05:30 AM

"You do not know what happened because you were not there. She has actually come on line in the past to challenge your version of events and to ask you to stop spreading it. So stop it. You do not have any authority to speak about anything that happened at that time because you were not directly involved with the festival and never have been."


Er, actually, she didn't ask *me*, at all, nor refer to me in any way whatsoever. I think you'll find it was actually Diane she was referring to, as she'd taken off on one of her 'all men are misogynists' rants...and was dragging Gordon further and further down.

And in case you've forgotten, my husband was one of the Directors at the time, so I was very aware of what happened and the fall out of how one person was treated afterwards.

Quite frankly, imo, it stank!

And it stank because one woman threw a wobbly over something that was said at the height of an incredibly stressful moment, during an incredibly stressful week when nobody knew what the outcome of Sidmouth Folk Week would be.

YOUR festival would have had NOT outcome had it not been for that one man who put one helluva lot of money....and love....into a festival he's loved all his life, and he wanted his new grandson to enjoy that festival too, in his later years. He ensured, with his incredibly generous backing that that would happen.

Don't tell me, in (imo) a highly bullying manner, what I can or cannot write about,Joan, nor what I do and do not know.

Thank you.

And, I can assure you that I was doing my own part for quite a few of the artists involved in that first Folk Week, not that you'd know about that of course, because I was doing it through peter...but heyho....

I do not have to explain, nor justify myself to any of you. I do what I do. This is not a Folk Court of Law (sorry to tell you that, Dave) and I'm always puzzled as to why no other person is treated in this obsessive and analytical way.

I wrote 15,000 words about Siddy which were enjoyed by many people. I'm sorry if that upsets you, but I think it's probably best to just get over it...and move on....Sidmouth is yours now, it is nothing to do with me any longer.

And don't forget, Show of Hands have a new CD out, so I'm really looking forward to hearing your thoughts about it soon.


And now, back to Moira and The Tower..

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 05:43 AM

Lizzie, I know Kate. She specifically came onto Mudcat and asked YOU to stop spreading your version of events. It is innacurate and defamatory. Stop it now.

You have never been involved in the festival. All of your information is based on hearsay, speculation and rumour. You have, and have never had, any authority to speak about any internal matters that ever took place with regard to Sidmouth Folk Week because you, personally, have never been involved in the event, except as a customer. So please stop spreading nasty rumours and outright lies, and stick to making Torquay Folk Week a success. How's it coming, by the way? Where can I get my tickets?

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Folkiedave
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 05:44 AM

I'm always puzzled as to why no other person is treated in this obsessive and analytical way.

That is the problem Lizzie - you just don't get it do you?

But it has been explained on a number of occasions and you never got it then. So there is no reason to think you will now.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: GUEST,Emma B
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 05:46 AM

'And thanks, Emma, but I'm well aware of how some women were once treated'

Well actually, as I believe I pointed out, it was how ALL women were treated prior to the fight for equality and the freedom from being 'protected' from making life decisions by a paternalistic society.
It might have saved some bandwith if you posted as though you were aware of some historical context instead of 'I don't know any men who would want to do that'


"That's my point. You can't blame ALL men for the few bad ones."

Well I don't Lizzie - perhaps you can demonstrate where I have ever done that?
I was brought up in the principle expressed in religious terms as 'loving the sinner not the sin' but not in the concept of 'original sin'

Fortunately, I also don't regard all women on the basis of some of the ill informed and wilfully misleading things you have posted here either.


"so I know that not all men are evil little bastards, as some women still like to think of them...Thank you"

It does seem to me Lizzie that you are the only person who keeps bringing this idea up, as far as I can see the women posting here are all in perfectly satisfactory relationships with men they respect and who respect them as individuals NOT because they were conditioned to behave in certain ways to 'ladies'

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 06:24 AM

As a slight sidetrack, Emma — I have absolutely no religion, but it seems to me that the concept of 'original sin', used non-doctrinally, makes a lot of sense: about the only 'religous'formulation that does it for me. Evil does exist, and is a real puzzler; but it must come from somewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 06:28 AM

MtheGM: Original sin only has to exist if you believe in the concept of evil, and some people being born evil.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 06:32 AM

I know, Ruth; but just now & again one comes across an inexplicably bad person [I saw it in my years of teaching, e.g.] where one just has to fall back on the concept. I don't urge this dogmatically — that's just how it seems to me. I think, mind, to take up your mode of expression, that 'evil', as a CONCEPT, is inescapable.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: GUEST,Emma B
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 06:35 AM

excuse the thread drift but - in reply to bubblyrat's earlier post

Smedly used the phrase
'your gender differentiation in accepting/refusing a seat seems at best quaint & at worst masochistic'

Apart from the fact I would agree with the sentiment wholeheartedly I also feel that the word 'gender' was the best word to use in this context as it refers to a role
'determined by social interaction, exchange, and absorption of peer, familial, and larger cultural values that determine identity and affiliation.'
and not simply 'an individuals physical anatomy – genitalia, facial hair, body structure and composition. i.e. the biological characteristics that separate male from female.'

I don't see any confusion in Smedley's use of words - just the opposite in fact!

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 06:41 AM

I was the one who started this bit of the drift going in describing my dilemma re young ladies offering a male oldie [me] a seat on the Tube: & I decline to apologise for my inability to accept in such circs, perverse in its quaintness &/or masochism as it might appear to all of you lovely young people. Just my early conditioning which was right at the time — & I consider remains so.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Folkiedave
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 06:50 AM

I was in Lille three weeks ago and used their metro a lot. I have never been offered so many seats ever, anywhere. I felt quite old!!

Generally I give up my seat!!

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 07:05 AM

"I'm always puzzled as to why no other person is treated in this obsessive and analytical way."

That is the problem Lizzie - you just don't get it do you?

But it has been explained on a number of occasions and you never got it then. So there is no reason to think you will now.<<<<<



Oh, yes, I get it, Dave. I get it very well. I also get you very well...

And, I think that it's very sad that this whole case, going back to Moria and The Tower, couldn't have been settled in some other way, other than two people having to lose their jobs AND their homes as well.   It seems crazy that no other way through could have been found..

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: kendall
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 07:08 AM

Is it still legal in England for a man to beat his wife?

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Smedley
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 07:09 AM

I'm sure the sackings weren't the 'first resort' - those accused of bullying etcetera would have had warnings before this final step was taken.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 07:15 AM

Depends on the size of the stick used

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: GREEN WELLIES
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 07:20 AM

Kendall, ............... only if he has a head start.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 07:38 AM

"I know, Ruth; but just now & again one comes across an inexplicably bad person [I saw it in my years of teaching, e.g.] where one just has to fall back on the concept."

See, i find that very hard to reconcile with. There are so many factors that will determine behaviour: social, psychological, brain chemistry. These things all have determinate roots and causes.

"Evil" points to something intangible and without cause; something spiritual. To believe in evil, you have to have a spirituality. I can't make myself believe in anything spiritual, so consequently can't believe that there is a "badness" in the world, and that some people are born with it and some aren't. It's all chemicals and conditioning, in my opinion. If you factor "evil" into the eqiuation, it's too easy for society to write off certain members as irredeemable, because they are fundamentally "bad".

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 07:52 AM

But surely, Ruth, to take your three donnés; social, psychological, brain chemistry — you present them as if they were full equivalents: BUT, I would urge, no such thing.

The social is, as it were externally induced; but the other two, internally — so to describe them as 'original' doesn't seem to me an unreasonable distortion of the term[s]. The fact that their causes may be, in your word, 'determinate' does not make them any the less - to find a cognate but perhaps less loaded word - intrinsic. & if they lead in their turn to any particularly antisocial manifestations, then 'evil' seems a perfectly reasonable adjective to use of their effects — it doesn't of itself, surely, imply or presuppose any necessary metaphysical or spiritual or faith-based component? It is, in not merely the grammatical sense, a simple qualitative adjective [or abstract noun, depending on its syntactical function within its context].

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 08:07 AM

You cross into Evil when you decide, of your own free will, to do evil things, imo.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 08:23 AM

"Lizzie, I know Kate. She specifically came onto Mudcat and asked YOU to stop spreading your version of events. It is innacurate and defamatory. Stop it now."


Then find the thread, Joan. You'll see that Kate came on and asked 'generally' for the whole matter to be laid to rest.

Sadly, she came on very late, and the damage had been done. I'd have had far more respect for her if she'd come on straight away, because that thread should never have been started in the first place. I've no idea who started it, but obviously it had to be someone who knew Bellowhead.

She, at no time, asked *me* personally to stop.

I think she came on shortly after I'd said that I was losing my respect for Bellowhead and their manager....

I do not need your permission to talk, nor to put my opinions down. You do not own Mudcat, nor Sidmouth Folk Week, nor the English Folk World, so I'd rather you stopped behaving as a Folk Dictator, because I've been surrounded by them for way too long.

Thank you.

And again, I wonder if Moira had half as much to put up with as I so often do in here, from the very folks who are defending what happened to Moira?   

If she didn't, and her abuse was far less than many of the things that are said in here to me and about me, then I think it's terrible that two families have now lost their homes and income over this.

No, she should not have been made to feel unwanted, or had nasty things said about her or to her, if that's what happened, but I still think that the end result is not a happy one for anyone and I doubt that even Moira is happy with it, because it must weigh heavily on her mind.

All a very sad and sorry state of affairs.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: catspaw49
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 08:29 AM

Obviously the drum kits are less than what is needed here..........................HMMMMMM.....................okay then....................... I see we just got in a shipment of AF bodhrans for those requiring something different......and gawd knows this group here needs something.............Ya' know I think I'll keep one myself so any of you who want to can stretch my skin and play with my tipper...............................


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 08:34 AM

You have brought this up on several occasions. On more than one occasion Kate came to Mudcat to ask you to stop. You were not there. You did not witness the event. Just leave it.

Why not focus on the guest list for Torquay Folk Week? Are you ready to announce your headliners yet? Maybe you could devote a special spot to it on your radio programme.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 08:44 AM

"You have brought this up on several occasions. On more than one occasion Kate came to Mudcat to ask you to stop. You were not there. You did not witness the event. Just leave it."

Sorry, but I was on the thread. You weren't. Kate did not ask me personally. Also, Peter spoke *personally* to Gordon about the incident. He and Gordon got along very well. Sorry if that irks you, but heyho.

The man is marvellous, and without him, there'd be no Sidmouth. Simple fact.


I expect Dave'll go quiet for hours now, whilst he tries to find said thread and quote from it... LOL

Bodhrans, Spaw..Brilliant!!! :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 08:50 AM

There have been several threads on which you made reference to this incident. Kate has come to Mudcat on more than one occasion to try and get you to stop defaming her. You were not there. You did not witness the incident. It is, and always was, none of your business, unless your business is hysterical, ill-informed shit-stirring. Oh, that's right...

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Folkiedave
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 09:04 AM

Lizzie. You really are slipping on this folk festival idea. You really need to be getting on with it now. Otherwise it could be a disaster.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 09:11 AM

"it doesn't of itself, surely, imply or presuppose any necessary metaphysical or spiritual or faith-based component? It is, in not merely the grammatical sense, a simple qualitative adjective [or abstract noun, depending on its syntactical function within its context]."

But I think it does, MtheGM. As a descriptive term, it's too loaded to be useful outside of a spiritual context. While I understand that some of the genetic or chemical predetermined factors which govern behaviour can be termed "original", I'm not sure that adding the words "sin" or "evil" is particularly helpful. If anything, they simply introduce a certain bias against the individuals in question. I understand the points you're making, but I do think there must be less contentious and problematic descriptors.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 09:22 AM

"There have been several threads on which you made reference to this incident. Kate has come to Mudcat on more than one occasion to try and get you to stop defaming her. You were not there. You did not witness the incident. It is, and always was, none of your business, unless your business is hysterical, ill-informed shit-stirring."


The person who did the shit-stirring in this matter was the person who started that thread, way back...actually.

Kate has NOT come on Mudcat 'several times' to 'try and get 'me' to stop defaming her'

If she has, then please, print it out here for us all to see...

Sorry, Joan, but I do have a right to my opinion on this matter, and it is also, in a way, relevant to this thread, because of the man/woman/man thing.

And if you and folkiedave cannot see a parallel between Moira's case and so much of the shite you two write about me, then I'm afraid that there's not a lot of hope left, is there...

And I still think, getting BACK to the thread topic, that the end result of this case has been so drastic and hugely damaging for two families, the rest of the Beefeaters, and the lady concerned.   I'm sure that the right person could have smoothed those rocky waters over and it's a crying shame that no-one was able to find that person.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 09:43 AM

"There have been several threads on which you made reference to this incident. Kate has come to Mudcat on more than one occasion to try and get you to stop defaming her. You were not there. You did not witness the incident. It is, and always was, none of your business, unless your business is hysterical, ill-informed shit-stirring."

And here, is the proof that what you say is a lie, Joan, because in all of Kate's posts here, and these go back to the 'Sidmouth 2005 - the Verdict' thread where that incident was brought up, she NEVER, in any way whatsoever, addressed me personally.


Kate's messages on Mudcat

Thank you.

And yes, I do accept public apologies, even from people who are so determined to drag my name through as much dirt as they can find to throw at me, time after time after time.

Your dirt is of no substance...and of no importance to me.

Go spread your rumours about someone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 09:56 AM

Kate has been on Mudcat since 2006. I can't remember how she signed herself in at the time, but she is my friend, and I remember her e-mailing me and telling me how upset she was that you'd dragged the incident up again. She then posted on Mudcat to set the record straight. She had at that time stopped working for Bellowhead and had stopped running Queen Mab, so her log-in was obviously not the one you have found.

I have nothing to apologise to you for, and I never have.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 10:03 AM

Ohhhh, and look at one Lizzie Cornish said about the very incident in question at the time:

"Kate and Musician Anon.....whatever happened at the Bellowhead concert is private and purely between the people concerned. It is NOT something to be put on messageboards where speculation can run rife and mischief makers can thwart and demean people to their hearts content. There are now comments coming out which, to me, seem almost like defamation of character."

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 10:10 AM

Well, that's strange, because she posted in August 2005, as you can see in the thread link above. So she was here before 2006.

Seems to me your 'friends' manage to get others into a bit of trouble rather easily.

If she was upset, well, just think how the other person felt, although methinks that's not a strong point of those who only see one side of things.

Ho hum...

"I have nothing to apologise to you for, and I never have."

And I'm sure the two men who behaved likewise to your friend felt the same way.

As I said earlier on, physician, heal thyself.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 10:13 AM

Ruth: "I understand the points you're making, but I do think there must be less contentious and problematic descriptors." >>>

OK, Ruth; then "original - sin - evil" don't work for you: they happen to express the concept that I wish to convey when trying to address, conceive, comprehend such phenomena as Auschwitz; Holocaust; AnneFrank [please, Spaw, keep off that bloody drumkit just for once; you have tediously beaten {word deliberately chosen} that particular (un)pleasantry to death]. If you, Ruth, can think of a better verbal explication of such, feel free to use your preferred one. "Original Sin", in, I reiterate, no doctrinal sense, is the only term I can come up with to cover the concomitant concepts to my own verbal satisfaction. You, as I say, will have to choose your own, less 'loaded' nomenclature.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 10:15 AM

Yup, I tried to stop it getting out of hand. And...I stood up for the man concerned, still would, still do.

I also had PMs come my way thanking me for standing up for Gordon, from people who'd known him for decades and knew what a kind and generous person he was.

It's a great shame he's still not helping to Sidmouth.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 10:16 AM

This thread needs to be closed.
There is an element of gang warfare appearing now.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 10:25 AM

"since 2006" = "after 2006". Meaning she also has posted subsequent to the messages you unearthed.

Now can you please just heed your own advice, and leave these people alone:

"whatever happened at the Bellowhead concert is private and purely between the people concerned. It is NOT something to be put on messageboards where speculation can run rife and mischief makers can thwart and demean people to their hearts content. There are now comments coming out which, to me, seem almost like defamation of character."

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Folkiedave
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 11:28 AM

And if you and folkiedave cannot see a parallel between Moira's case and so much of the shite you two write about me, then I'm afraid that there's not a lot of hope left, is there...

Nope Lizzie, no parallel at all.

I have not once mentioned your sex, never once. And if you are a bloke it would make no difference. I only comment on what you yourself write.

Despite the abuse.

Now why not organising your Torquay Folk Festival. There'll be a press release coming aout about Sidmnouth soon no doubt and you haven't even told us who is headlining!! And I have offered practical help. YOu haven't even said thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: GREEN WELLIES
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 11:34 AM

I have friends living in Torquay I'll ask them to keep their ears open for news - cant wait !
It will be a good excuse to pop down and see them.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 11:50 AM

Four

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Folkiedave
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 12:41 PM

I haven't been to Torquay in years. I'm looking forward to going again.

Haven't found the website yet though. Still I am sure it's on it's way.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 12:48 PM

"There'll be a press release coming aout about Sidmnouth soon no doubt and you haven't even told us who is headlining!!"

Correct. I haven't.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03 Dec 09 - 02:35 PM

This thread has become yet another personal squabble. I guess it's time to close it, even though I get the feeling that certain parties are trying to manipulate me into closing it.
-Joe Offer-