 |
| John Freeman |
Recently, on JOHN FREEMAN's FACEBOOK page, he made the following comment:
This was in reference to my throwaway remark about someone having "a face you'd never get tired of punching". As anyone with an ounce of sense knows, this is a humorous expression intended to convey that someone has an irritating quality about their demeanour, and is a convenient way of dismissing them as an impertinent, provocative, odious little gobsh*te. I find it hard to believe that a man of his age hasn't heard this well-known expression before, which suggests his ascribing a "threat of physical violence" to me is nothing less than a deliberate distortion and wilful misinterpretation of the facts in order to influence people's opinion and thereby denigrate me. Note also his attempt to suggest that I had no good reason for assuming Boyce's post was about me, despite the fact that it contained specific references to things which matched my own circumstances. I wasn't claiming that it was only about me, but it's disingenuous and absurd to deny that I was an intended target (the main one even) when his description of background was far from vague or nebulous.
Note how, in just one short paragraph, he endeavours to portray me as aggressive ("threat of physical violence"), obsessional ("berating current creators and their work"), dishonest ("frequent rewrites of his blog posts"), and actually warns his followers about my 'Babe of the Day' feature, as though I'm a perverted purveyor of pornography deserving of an 'alert'. It demonstrates a certain amount of hypocrisy on his part, as his comics news site has featured instances of what could only be described as 'good girl' art, which would fall under the same category of "scantily-clad ladies in risque poses". Also, he admitted to me that he and others also "rewrite" (as in amend for clarity or conciseness) their blog posts all the time, so why insinuate dishonesty on my part? Agenda?*
Mr. Freeman contacted me and, in my response to him, I conveyed my displeasure about the way he had maligned my character. Mr. Freeman eventually pulled his post and then apologised for his remarks, but I believe I'm entitled to wonder if it was merely for the purpose of protecting himself from the possibility of legal redress. Especially as he has permitted to stand a comment (from someone he has previously endorsed) which echoes the very sentiments he apologized for.
Also, for someone who seemingly prides himself on what he describes (in an email to me) as "proper journalistic behaviour", here are examples which indicate how he fails to live up to his declared aspirations. In the above screengrab, he states that "he (me) tries to justify" the "face" comment. Inaccurate. I simply pointed out that his interpretation of my remark and its intent was mistaken, which is not quite the same thing. He also says I'd "complained" that he never links to any of my blog posts. Again, not so. I merely observed the fact as a seeming indication of a bias against me.
Finally, it's worth noting that no one ever said I "deserved cancer" - the actual quote was that "cancer was too good" for me. In other words, I deserved something worse - if such an illness actually exists. Such a disconcerting inability to grasp and report what was actually said hardly inspires any confidence in me as to his journalistic competence, if I'm honest.
It gives me no pleasure to do this post. Mr. Freeman was a MARVEL U.K. editor who supplied me with some occasional lettering work back in my freelance days, and there were never any problems between us. However, when someone maligns me, I respond with neither fear nor favour, and I believe I have cause to wonder about the sincerity of his apology in light of him allowing the presence of a comment which repeats the very "crimes" he himself has previously accused me of - in direct reply to his "apology" too. The phrase "having his cake and eating it" springs to mind. If I'm suspicious, is it any wonder?
Were Mr. Freeman to remove the offending comment on his FB page, it would go some way in assuaging my doubt on the matter. However, he has steadfastly refused to do so.
You can draw your own conclusions as to why.
******
Mr. Freeman has now responded to this post by saying that if I don't remove it, he will be consulting with lawyers. He has also indicated that he will advise the photographer of the photo accompanying my report that I do not have permission to use it, and that I will then be charged £100 per day for its use. I wonder how he knows in what way the photographer will respond in advance of actually being informed?
******
*I suspect this stems from the fact that a biased moderator (let's name and shame him - ANDY BOAL) on a comics forum (which Mr. Freeman reads) once accused me of 'editing' (as in changing the meaning of) one of my comments. The fact is, I was composing the comment in the early hours of the morning, and made adjustment as they occurred to me not long after publishing it. No one had yet responded to the comment (if it had even been read), and although I was expanding it, I wasn't altering the tone or intent of what I was saying, merely fine-tuning its composition. Isn't that what an 'after-the-fact' edit facility is for?
Taking advantage of the site owner being away for a few days, Mr. Boal decided to pursue his personal prejudice against me by removing the edit facility for everyone, blaming me for his decision. He also issued me with several 'warnings' for defending myself from attacks by another forum member, with whom he was in cahoots. I resigned from the forum and Mr. Boal then banned me 'for leaving'. The site owner later admitted I was being baited and that none of the warnings should ever have been issued - and wouldn't have been if he hadn't been away.
He also conceded that there seemed to be collusion in attempts to cast me in a negative light, and also invited me to rejoin, which I declined. Astounding the depths to which that particular moderator (and his cohort) was prepared to stoop, eh? Especially as he claims to be a Christian.
******
Update: Since first publishing this post, I have now expanded its content to more fully address various aspects of the issue. Although I have added fuller detail, nothing has been deleted from the original content.
