SUICIDE BY (PURE) POISON

Crikey's editorial staff have again screwed up in allowing a Pure Poison "intellectual dishonesty' debunker to work unsupervised; barrister Jeremy Sear publishing a Matthew Johns post that was stealthily pulled, rewritten and eventually republished.

The original Sear post is here; the reworked effort, with mulitple disclaimers, is here -- notice that nowhere is it noted this is a rewrite. (In the event that the original is updated to reflect stealthy changes, screen grabs are avilable here and here.) The rewritten post does bear this warning in comments from Scott Bridges, however:

Some commenters have noted (in still-moderated comments) that this post was taken offline for a period of time. Alterations have been made to this post and no comment or speculation about the changes made or the reasons behind those changes will be published.

Thanks for your understanding on this matter.

Thanks for understanding the PP boys write unsupportable nonsense that has already seen them apologise to Andrew Bolt and Tim Blair, with a number of posts deleted owing to possible legal complications.

The post's author, Jeremy Sear, has a well deserved reputation for posting without due regard to the facts, even accusing me of criminal activity:

Beck is a shameless liar, smearer, and stalker.

Sear subsequently trying to intimidate me by demanding via emails from his Victorian Bar account that I provide him with my address so that he could serve unspecified legal documents. Strangely, these documents never arrived.

In short, Pure Poison is a joke as are its bloggers.

Update: Despite Jeremy's massive screw-up PP regular commenter Toaf reckons the post is outstanding.

Update II: Another thinly veiled threat from Jeremy. Funny how Jeremy, who wants to be able to download free of charge movies, games and music, is suddenly all concerned about the integrity of his intellectual property.

Update III: Some inspirational music for bagpipe lover Jeremy who, having yet again made a complete ass of himself, must be feeling a bit down at the moment.

Update IV: Jeremy, who for years ignored copyright by hot-linking images belonging to others (a practice described by Blogger as "stealing bandwidth"), objects to Iain Hall's post comparing the new Johns post to the original:

Iain, you’re a thief. Crikey pays me to print my work. You’re just taking it for free, without permission.

Good thing you only have a Noddy car to your name, or you’d be at risk of someone doing something about it.

Jeremy is, believe it or not, an intellectual property specialist.

Jeremy offers the following explanation -- at Hall's blog, rather than at Pure Poison -- for his post's removal, rewrite and reposting:

The original also referred to the allegations with “allegedly”. It did not say there was a rape – it said there was a question in the media about it. Crikey wanted to make it even clearer that we were not alleging anything about what happened, so we did. I dispute that the original was defamatory of Johns either – it was, and is, about Andrew Bolt’s ridiculous idea that consent is a “furphy”.

Here's an excerpt from the original, alleged by Jeremy to contain allegedly:

But the main thing Johns is in trouble for is for NOT following Lumby’s subsequent advice, that “informed consent” is vital. It’s that there’s an open question as to whether he stood by as the girl was effectively raped by the other team mates. Because - and it staggers me that a prominent newspaper columnist doesn’t seem to get this - consenting to sex with two men does not equal consenting to sex with any man who happens to walk into the room. And standing by while a woman is raped is itself a crime.

The disclaimer-rich rewrite:

But the main thing Johns is in trouble for is allegedly NOT following Lumby’s subsequent advice, that “informed consent” is vital. It’s the allegation - which may be untrue* - that he stood by as a girl was effectively raped (again, only an allegation) by his team mates. Because - and it staggers me that a prominent newspaper columnist doesn’t seem to get this - consenting to sex with two men does not equal consenting to sex with any man who happens to walk into the room. And standing by while a woman is raped would itself be a crime. (If that was what in fact happened, in respect of which all we know is that the NZ police have investigated those allegations and decided not to prosecute.)

Anyway, it's funny how the PP boyz operate. After drawing Andrew Bolt's ire an apology was posted not by the PP boyz but by Crikey editor Jonathan Green. When Ant Rogenous's "Tim Blair uses a sockpuppet" post backfired on him the apology came from Sear. Now the only comment concerning Sear's rewrite is from Scott Bridges. The PP boyz obviously refuse to accept individual responsibility for what they write.

Update V: Someone at Crikey belatedly updates Jeremy's post:

There have been some minor changes made to this post to make the above note doubly clear. Obviously, this post is about the general issue, not the specific incident in question. It is responding to Andrew Bolt’s thoroughly disturbing suggestion that consent is merely a “furphy” - and his ridiculous attempt to use the incident to try to get a “culture war” opponent sacked.

Here's the "above note" referred to above:

We have no idea what occurred on that night, and are not alleging anything. We are commenting on the general issues raised by the subsequent discussion. Mr Johns has not been charged with any offence, and the allegations against him that are being widely discussed in the national media are just that - allegations. We know nothing more on the specific incident that prompted the debate than that.

The note was not in the original post so it is incorrect to claim the post was rewritten to make the note "doubly clear" -- the note was added during the rewrite. And the changes weren't "minor"; the post was rewritten. The PP boyz do not like owning their screw-ups.