HPRW

(How Persecution Really Works... This is a further comment on my trial by internet. I am posting it here because Doug Cheadle, who has set up a site to denounce me as a plagiarist, is no longer posting my comments or anyone else's who has the temerity to sing a different tune from the one he wants his site to be singing. I say Doug Cheadle, but I might just as well call him Mrs Jones, I think or John Smith.)

TRIAL BY INTERNET (which we should all regard with suspicion because it does not have the fairness of even a court of law. It operates at the level of vigilante justice!)

In a court of law there is a presumption of innocence until a case is proven and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In trial by internetthe starting point of bloggers, very often, is that a person is guilty. That is certainly the case here, with many back in July 2009 calling me thief without even being able to see the evidence. (Jane Smith has the audacity to call it 'The Whole Story'! My side is not there.)

In a court of law the jury has no vested interested in the outcome of proceedings. In trial by internet the judge, jury and prosecution are sometimes all one, and sometimes have personal reasons for seeing the defendant damaged. I have blogged below about Jane Smith and her reasons for wanting to 'slap' me and her pretence of 'wishing me well' when all she does is harm me.

In a court of law witnesses are sworn in under oath and any statement they make is scrutinised and pared back to the truth and relevance. In trial by internet people can be anonymous and malicious without fear of discovery. They can even pretend to be having a conversation with themselves, offering support for each other against the one being 'charged' and making it appear that many are against the one.

In a court of law when something false has been said, it is revealed and discounted. In trial by internet falsehoods are passed from blog to blog, growing fatter on the journey, and even when the defending council questions the truth of what has been said on one blog it is always too late to prevent it having been spread beyond its original source.

Even where a defendant provides a true and incontrovertible statement that contradicts something else that is being said, the bloggers ignore it - often they do, seeing only what they want to see and what they started with: that the defendant is guilty, plain and simple.

In a court of law what is said is recorded so that it can be referred back to and can be read back to the court. In trial by internet people can 'say' something on their blog and then quietly amend it at a later date without anyone really seeing the sleight of hand. And this can be used slyly and maliciously against the accused and no one sees what has been done. Jane Smith has done this with her post on copyright (see my post below this one).

In a court of law there is an attempt to obtain a complete picture and a complete understanding before judgement is made. In trial by internet people make judgements on the flimsiest of evidence and even on the mere say so of others. If Jane Smith on her HPRW site says someone is a criminal, then others go onto her site and believe she must be right and join in the condemnation of the 'guilty' person.

I have been accused of plagiarism. I have always maintained that I am not guilty of the things people say in this matter. One person in particular simply invents things against me, persuading all her blogger friends to vent their vitriol against me. I discover that several sites have snatched bits of the ‘debate’ out of context and put them on their sites. And yet others continue to perpetuate lies that I had several months ago e-mailed them about to correct.

And now someone masquerading under a pseudonym has violated the copyright of my work to post up the ‘evidence’ for the world to see, driving a horse and carriage through the law to have me ‘revealed’ (have they not read their Robert Bolt!) and thinking that they do some noble deed in what they have done. If it was so noble a deed, would they not be less sneaky about it and hang their name to what they have done? Further, not allowing the works of mine alone to incriminate me, they have also added a comment or ten of their own, full of untruths, just in case you are not persuaded of my guilt by my works. So far, there has not been the rush to say 'there, as we have been told, he is guilty of plagiarism'. And now, in a final desperate effort to make me guilty, Doug Cheadle has taken control of the comments posted on his site, the better to make sure that only one side of the case is fairly presented: his/her own.

Last week I had a long phone conversation with a writer I did not know and who had no reason to support me. He had read something of what is 'up there' on the internet and he said that he did not think I was guilty of plagiarism. He had no reason to be friendly or polite. He approached me on the matter. And he asked after my well-being, wanting to know how all of this had affected me... he could hear in my voice that it had affected me greatly. I am reminded of Henry Fonda's character in the film 'The Wrong Man'.

I still contend that I am innocent of the charges 'they' make. In many blog posts below I have laid out my side of the matter. I have argued against 'their' definition of what is plagiarism; I have argued using Jane Smith's own definition against her (before she amended it... now it is amended it makes no sense). She still says that ideas are 'fair game' and that only particular arrangements of words can be protected. She has changed this later on her blog in order to attack me. I have argued for the focus to not exclude an examination of the differences between similar works. I have argued that language is about the transmission of ideas and that art accepts that passing ideas from one artist to another is all part of the creative process. I have pointed to the imitative element in art. I have quoted eminent thinkers of today in support of what I have done, and argued against one of the high profile accusers in this matter, demonstrating that she has done precisely the same as she accuses me of. I have never taken another’s words and have always written my stories.

I have never tried to hide what I have done, not any part of it. Everything is very up front. (The same cannot be said for those who attack me from behind their anonymous posts) You just need to read what I have admitted to on this blog to know who I am and what I believe and what I have done. And if you do read what I have said, I think you will come to two related conclusions:

a) First, this whole plagiarism matter is a very complex one and not, as one writer has said, as easy as deciding ‘theft is theft’.

b) Second, with the 'evidence' out there, this is not really what you thought to find in work that has been lambasted as plagiarist.

Google my name and I am a plagiarist. That is what trial by internetcan do. More to do with spite than to do with goodness. But I am not a plagiarist. I hope that some of you, reading wider on the issue, and thinking with a modicum of sense, a huge dose of sensitivity, and an intellect to match, will come to the conclusion that what we have here is not plagiarism, but the seemier side of blogging and a reason for denouncing trial by internet.