What a strange sequence of events..

May 27th, 2011 | Filed under Uncategorized

So…

Part 1

This lunchtime, I was contacted by Richard Woods from the Sunday Times.. I can only assume he found me by determining my employer from Facebook or Linked In, called the switchboard, got put through to a colleague, who then gave him my number.

So he’s working on a story about the Giggs / Imogen injunction, and based on his research has determined that my tweet on the subject back in April was one of the first on Twitter. He suspects it’s the actual first, though I could swear I saw others the day I posted it.. Anyway, it seems to me that he suspects that I had some sort of insider information, and could be the person who leaked the story, given that my tweet was posted on the day the injunction was granted.

This is, of course, not the case. I got my information from a website that described the subject of the injunction as a successful Welsh international who is getting on a bit – doesn’t take a genius to work out who that is. Problem is, if I can’t find that website, then based on the paper’s perception of events, that leaves me as “patient zero”. He kept asking if I knew specific Twitter users, but none of the usernames were familiar. If it’s people who retweeted me based on finding my tweet via search, I’m not surprised. Anyway, must find that site in my history..

Part 2

Found the website, and called Richard back with the details. He seemed genuinely disappointed that it proves that I’m not connected with the case, and am just another link in a slightly longer chain. My tweet was posted about six hours after the blog I sourced the information from went up, so if anything, by Internet standards, I was slow out of the blocks…

Had an interesting chat all the same about the manner in which the blog identified Giggs, about what happens its person breaches an injunction before its existence is announced, and about implications for privacy.

Towards the end of the call, he made it clear that my name could well appear in the story. I’m not sure what relevance I have in the whole thing, since I’m just one of many, but I guess if it was worth complaining about being mentioned without consent, Giggs would be ahead of me in the queue anyhow..

A quick check reveals that my tweet was retweeted a total of two times, which is hardly a strong performance in a medium where even the most banal of remarks can travel around the world in minutes…

Part 3

Had an odd message left for me, asking that I call a chap named Ray, a colleague of Richard’s.. Tried calling a few times, but he wasn’t around – the first couple of times I thought they answered the phone with “Features..?” which made a sort of sense, but it subsequently dawned that it’s “Pictures”. Ominous…

Part 4

Just finished on the phone again… They want a photo of me, weren’t clear about whether it was a thumbnail to be used as part of a graphic, or something else.. Not sure why I’m relevant to this story, which I reiterated to Ray, since I was neither the first nor the most prominent person to tweet on the subject. That’s not his job though, his job is pictures. Asked if I could send something over (their first preference was for me to come in, but I’m rather busy), seemed fine with the idea of using an older picture.. Will have to dig out something from Facebook..

Part 5

Sent over a Facebook picture of me with pink hair. Terribly sad to be trying to recapture past follicular glory, but it’s a nice picture, and my pink hair deserves a wider audience. Ray seemed concerned that it was of poor resolution.. That, to me, is odd – it must be at least 600×400, surely sufficient for something small. The only circumstances under which that’s not large enough are surely those in which I’m prominent – again, not a role that I would seek or agree with.. Had to decline another invitation to come in and be photographed – much as I’d like professional headshots and all, for my glamour work…

More to follow…

Tags:
No comments yet.