So, there I was checking my emails for something exciting to write about this week when up popped a rather annoying missive from a company which claims to be a “reputation control” specialist. Of course, my natural reaction was to delete it sharpish and not tell my esteemed boss. After all, surely if you ignore something for long enough it will disappear won’t it?
The next day I got another one. Blimey, I thought, these people really are serious.
And I quote: “We act on behalf of Mr X (“Client”) in connection with an article that appeared in your publication, and which also appears in an online version via searchable links. Our Client considers these articles to be unfair, biased and highly prejudicial.”
Oh shit, I thought, who out of the hundreds of people I have blatantly libelled over the years has taken it all rather too seriously.
But there’s more: “We have sufficient evidence to show above and beyond the balance of probability, that the content complained of and appearing on, hosted and promoted by you contains unfair content towards our Client. Such content is being communicated to thousands of people throughout the world, and poses an ongoing serious threat to our Client’s emotional and physical well-being. We believe the article exists wholly in the name of ghoulish voyeuristic entertainment and monetisation as Click Fishing.”
Wow.
Bless them “such content is being communicated to thousands of people throughout the world”. Maybe they know something we don’t.
And as for: “We believe the article exists wholly in the name of ghoulish voyeuristic entertainment and monetisation as Click Fishing.” How very dare they?
It’s as if that disgraced Tory MP Jonathan Aitken was back on the scene. As you may recall, he famously said: “If it falls to me to start a fight to cut out the cancer of bent and twisted journalism in our country with the simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of fair play, so be it. I am ready for the fight.” Hmm if I remember rightly, he ended up in jail.
Anyway, unperturbed, I sent a swift response, pointing out that Mr X was actually guilty as charged of a blatant breach of data protection law and had been fingered good and proper by the ICO and The Insolvency Service, as reported by no lesser authority than the BRITISH GOVERNMENT.
Suddenly this so-called reputation specialist was not quite so cocky. Here’s his rather illiterate response: “I don’t see what your need is to have this as a story also? We are not talking about a major celebrity here that this article gets you lots of readers.
“Imagine this was about you and now every time someone Google’s your name (employers, friends, family etc) will see this and affected your life. Would you not feel the same way?
“If he had done this then maybe I would understand however it was a firm he was buying leads from which unfortunately happen to do it in an unethical method which he had no knowledge of.
“The letter we sent you may of been threatening but it was also a courtesy letter to ask you to remove the story without the headache (both sides) of legal action. Can you really sit there comfortably knowing this article affects someone everyday in a major way?”
Yep, I can. Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time, as they say. See you in court buster! (PS. Anyone got any barrister mates?)
You can now follow Foxy on Twitter and Instagram (although don’t expect too much)
