J K Rowling: Hypocrite or Superstar?

I have just watched a documentary covering a year in the life of J K Rowling. Since she or her publishers are very litigious, I will add that my son is a big fan and has been routinely indulged with first day editions. I even read one or most of one of the Harry Potter books. I remember a mesmerising performance by Robbie Coltrane so I guess I must have also seen at least one of the films.

She is therefore an abolutely wonderful person and the title link should in no way be regarded as detracting from that.

The question for debate is simply whether exposing your life in a television documentary is consistent with suing a lowly photographer or his newspaper for taking a photograph of your child.

My opinion is that only a megaritch client could be advised to chance their arm. Only the lawyers win. They did. She lost.

So who advised her to pursue an unwinnable case? I do not know and, even if I did, I could not possibly say!

Comrade Durova's Response

Durova has responded to my postings. I do not know why she would bother since this a basic test site with little in the way of hits. I do intend to use my ISP's submissions utilities once it and the website are both up and running but I have not done so yet (deliberately - I'm not posting regularly enough and my website is currently way out of date due to updating to new authoring tools).

I am also very busy because I have a real day job as a lawyer. Now, some would say that is not a real day job but I am ignoring sarcastic comments that have not yet been made (but only for today).

I will respond fully to you, Durova, in a private email tomorrow. I only received your email today because you sent it to my office address (easily discoverable - but I would prefer users in future to post comments or use the website email address at host@stevencarrigan.com.).

I was run off my feet today because two other lawyers had taken advantage of the fact that court deadlines take no account of the Christmas period. It counts; but we closed the office on 22nd December and did not reopen until today.

One of my staff commented on serving documents just before Christmas in order to miimise a time limit: "That's just what you would do."

I deny this but I am not prepared to make a aworn statement that I would never do it.

So, you take it and live with it. Litigators (trial lawyers, for any American readers) know that your opponent will fuck you if he or she can get away with it.

So, Durova, this is why I have not had time to respond today. Your email was at my office. I meant to bring it home. I fogot to do so. The reason was that I was preoccupied with urgent client business.

I am interested in debating with you and my cursory glance at your email this morning suggests that the following issues are matters of contention between us:

(a) Whether I was guilty of substandard research before commenting. I suggest not and your contention that I based my views on a tabloid newspaper report alone is contradicted by the links on the blog itself.

(b) Whether or not you were engaging in censorship. I still think you were. You think you were engaged in a quest for accuracy.

(c) Whether or not your methods were inquisatorial and excessive. I still think they were. You disagree.

I will respond by private email if that is what you prefer. However, I regard freedom of speech as a public issue and my personal preference is that you post your views. Then, others can comment.

I do not censor comments unless the law requires me to do so, and even then I would clearly declare my disapproval of any such law. That is what this site and blog is about. In case you have not appreciated it:

THIS SITE IS ABOUT TOTAL FREEDOM TO EXPRESS ANY VIEW, HOWEVER HIDEOUS.

Non-believers in freedom of expression may believe that the above is wrong! Well, here is the place to say so.

If you think there should be restraints then, you can say so too.

Anyone can say anyrhing! That is Magna Carta.

Kind regards,

Steven Carrigan.