The letter to says it was delivered by hand and uses the Church notepaper for her diocese of Northumbria and Rheged.
Headed 'WITHOUT PREJUDICE' in light blue, it then in black ink states that "Taking instruction" from her "Internet lawyer", I am to be aware that on my blog I was "acting independently of the Hull Park Street congregation" and engaged in "illegal acts" on the blog by placing parts of an email from Rt. Rev. Dr. Mhoira Lauer-Patterson in the public domain without permission. I have 48 hours to give a public and personal apology.
Also I am to remove all inflamatory and defamatory articles including her name from this blog within 48 hours.
"Appearing to have blackened the name of Mhoira lauer-Patterson and her character", I have committed the "unpardonable offence" of defamation. "This is an illegal act" and if I persist and do not remove the material, "then legal action will be taken against him."
I am advised that "publishing offensive and defamatory material on the Internet is illegal", that "cannot be described as journalistic licence" as such is "contrary to the code of ethics of journalists".
So she gives notice of the above and "reserves the right to take legal action" should I not comply with her wishes.
Well, oh dear, I spent from the end of 2009 to the start of 2011 going backwards and forwards to my solicitor, and he would not have written a letter like that not at any point "instructed" me to write something similar.
First of all, lawyers do not instruct, either to construct a letter or to hand deliver. Lawyers take instructions from clients. Secondly, letters written in pseudo-legalese are not very convincing, as this one is not convincing.
Just to be kind I'll rewrite the blog entry to remove chunks of the email. But the email chunks were for accuracy. It was an email written in direct language against me - "How dare you..." etc. and accusatory against the General Assembly, wholly based on a blog entry and full of misinformation itself. I might have just binned it, but I am not collaborating in its message. The issues were public ones and were in public.
No I am not apologising or removing anything else.
Now I am, however, bound to quote from another email, and this one matters. This is the necessary section, starting with its title:
Don't take things too seriously Adrian...
From Very Rev Dr Mhoira Lauer-Patterson
Date 2011-09-26, 16:35:17
To Worsfold, Adrian
Dear Adrian: Look, I hate to say this, but you are taking things far too seriously. My points were to ponder over, NOT any criticism of you. I am not accusing you of anything, least of all lacking in research as you always do a far more detailed analysis than I would do. Yes maybe we have gotten off on the wrong foot, so let's start over huh? On the matter of 'privacy' I felt I didn't need to add 'for private info only' as I took it that as a gentleman, you would respect the views of any woman. The problem is that we women talk openly to each other and then we forget it all and start again. I know that men do things differently and don't open up as much, but hey, lets get over it and carry on. Right? Anyway, I attach for your perusal my service sheet for the Harvest Festival on 9 October.
I'm afraid this email completely undermines the letter. As I said, lawyers take instructions from clients. The letter is trying it on for effect.
The letter appears to be of something it is not. It is not close enough to the advice of a solicitor: no solicitor would have even have mentioned a Unitarian congregation or body that was not involved, said I "appeared" to do something (you either do or you don't), written "unpardonable offence"and "illegal acts", or stated that if I didn't comply legal action would be taken and later on only might be taken, nor added the drivel about journalistic licence and ethics, and the solicitor would have given the date of the specific offending blog entry.
It seems that I am not a gentleman and do not respect the views of a woman, but, hey, let's get over it and carry on shall we, or stop playing silly games for appearances. As a gentleman I have removed the chunks of email text in the said blog entry of 24 September 2011. Or perhaps the good bishop wants to spend some money and get a lawyer.