I'll just leave this here shall I, fatty? I'm just popping to the loo.
For those that don't know, Fat Al continuously relies on an article which was removed from the Observer archives. He thinks by tweeting it repeatedly that it will return to the public arena and all of a sudden people will believe he is the best campaigner in his batshit mental world. He normally tweets it when I've published something about him or his fat arsed mates. He left the UK under a cloud of darkness involving a thirteen-year-old and a bag of chips apparently. Far be it for me to speculate about the truth behind the lurid allegations this twitter account has made public. The real batshit crazy nutter-bus passengers have as much idea about the truth behind the allegations as I do. But who cares about the truth anyway?
The hard truth is that most of the time, newspapers will reject your request to have an article unpublished. News organizations’ primary responsibility is to report objectively, not to protect your online reputation, and they themselves may face criticism if they unpublish materials too readily. A search of the Observers archives will evidence no sign of the article that was removed as a "gesture of goodwill" by the editor. I'm very grateful for the gesture but argue that the creation of the article is FFF- fabricated and or fake and or and false and or all three)
Removing content from external sites is notoriously problematic. Getting a newspaper to remove defamatory information is possible (though not easy), and when that information is deleted, Google will automatically stop showing it in search results. Newspapers are an important historical resource, and they’re proud of this fact. They’re generally quite hostile (as opposed to "gestures of goodwill") to the idea of deleting or removing published articles.
Typically, when information published is factual news, the most important factor in determining whether removal is possible is who the webmaster or news organization that published the content. In most circumstances, the only way to get factual news stories removed is to contact the organization or webmaster that published or is hosting the content. Whether a particular organization will remove an article will depend heavily on the internal policies of that particular organization and how convincing your reasons are (such as having evidence which proves the news article is FFF) for having the content removed.
While the best case scenario for a party harmed by a defamatory news article is complete removal of the article from the internet, media companies may offer some other options. For instance, if the harmed party can obtain a judgment that states a story is false and defamatory, some media companies may be willing to request that it be de-indexed from search engines (e.g. Google).
Moreover, media outlets may offer to correct or update a story if the requesting party provides proof of an inaccuracy or a new development. I'm working on this. The biggest new development so far is the emergence of an affidavit that isn't an affidavit by any description. Firstly, it's un-dated. Secondly, it's not signed by those who would have signed it as a legal affidavit i.e. solicitor, lawyer, paralegal or anyone who knows how to write their name. Thirdly, I'd never had sight of it until January 2016. Fourthly, any examination of it would show some very odd marks and scribbles, unsigned corrections are evident throughout the document.
Make your case, and make it well. There’s usually no legal reason to get an item taken down, so you’ll only succeed if you ask respectfully and eloquently. If they do remove the item, they’ll be doing it as a favor to you. Or as in my case "a gesture of goodwill".
Make your case, and make it well. There’s usually no legal reason to get an item taken down, so you’ll only succeed if you ask respectfully and eloquently. If they do remove the item, they’ll be doing it as a favor to you. Or as in my case "a gesture of goodwill".
 |
| E-mail from Stephen Pritchard (Readers Editor, Observer Newspaper) |
