This entry was posted on
Friday, March 20th, 2009 at
10:20 am and is filed
under Old Media.
– | –
Click here to sign the petition
(6,230 signatures and counting)
Click here to join the Facebook group
(4,364 members and counting)
IF YOU ARE NEW TO THIS ISSUE, PLEASE *READ* THE PETITION
Scottish Sunday Express article at the centre of this can be read here.
FYI: High demand is causing comment glitches and temporary outages.
Comments are still welcome, but may be lost or duplicated. Be warned.
– | –
There’s been no word from Derek Lambie about his legal threats, but a friend of Paula Murray’s has been in touch; he wanted his details removed from the Paula Murray drinky-drinky post.
I didn’t think his specific request made any sense without his taking a position on Murray’s conduct, so to be sure, I asked him for a wee statement on that before proceeding.
He described this as ‘blackmail’ and said he’d be speaking to his lawyer about it.
No, I am not kidding.
He then went on to demand that I withdraw his details on the grounds that he retains copyright on this image:
No, I am not kidding.
Well, you can keep your privacy*, old chap, but I’m keeping your image:
NOTE – Do not use this image. Violating copyright is wrong.
If any of Paula’s friends would like to see their faces removed from this post, then please do get in touch**.
I will do everything I can to appreciate your position and act accordingly, but I can only do this if you’re willing to explain what that position is.
Vague signals that may or may not mean “I only care about myself” don’t count; if you’re going to be a selfish hypocrite about it, just say so, and I’ll happily sort it right out. Seriously. Tell me on what grounds you want the relevant image(s) removed, and I will most likely remove it/them, regardless of what you say.
Doing things in this way at least gives me a chance of determining if innocent victims are involved, or if I’ve merely inconvenienced a bunch of self-centred wankers.
In other news, here’s what’s happening on Paula Murray’s Facebook page today:
Oh dear. Not having a Facebook account is seriously going to hamper her ability to befriend people she wants to turn over in her grubby little tabloid. Unless she plans on starting afresh under a false name. Not that someone with Paula’s integrity would ever do this of course; I’m just saying is all…
[*A small percentage of people may be able to work out this chap’s name. If you are one of those people, I ask that you (a) please keep it to yourself, or at least (b) never use it in association with this post or his image. If he’s going to come after me, let it be for copyright infringement alone. I want to see this.]
[**Offer does not apply to ickle babies. I’ll settle your hash in 2026 or thereabouts.]
[Oi! Derek! I hear whispers of an upcoming apology. It’s about bloody time. Make it a BIG one, eh? On the front page, where the original attack was, if you please. The headline should read ‘OUR SHAME’ and, if you don’t mind a little advice, you should avoid any pathetic attempts at mitigation, especially now that you have to apologise for the act and for taking such a long time to get around to it.]
UPDATE – Graham Linehan – It’s working…: And remember, there is no reason as yet to let up on The Express. While an apology is obviously a good start, we need to know what safeguards they are putting in place to ensure that nothing like this happens again, and how the journalist (Paula Murray) and the editor (Derek Lambie) will be punished for their appalling lack of moral judgement.
And the path to that is continued pressure via the petition. Take a few moments today to (quickly) explain it and share it with some of your ‘offline’ friends. Not a big campaign email, just a quick heads-up to a few extra people that you know will care about this, but may have missed the fuss on blogs and in Facebook. Graham’s post has more.
By underblog March 21, 2009 - 1:25 am
I don't think someone's privacy should be invaded just because they're friends with a twat.What he has said sounds a little pathetic and he doesn't really have much to complain about, but ultimately he shouldn't have to justify his right to privacy and I think you're undermining your principle here.
By Manic March 21, 2009 - 10:00 am
"I will most likely remove it/them, regardless of what you say."The qualifier's only there in case someone demands that I leave their photo in place.Nobody has to do justify their anything. I'm fully prepared to be lied to, just not to have my intelligence insulted.