For several years possibly the most persistent abuse of me on Twitter, and the second most persistent abuse on a blog, has come from the anonymous chartered accountant who writes the FCA Blog, where it would appear I am easily the most popular subject.
Then I discovered that I have been blocked from reading that author's twitter account today:
Might that have something to do with my having named the blog's author by what I think to be his first name in a tweet this morning?
Or is that just a coincidence?
Maybe the author might like to comment?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I suppose you’ve never blocked anyone from your twitter feed?
I have never used anonymity to abuse people
I have blocked those who do
It seems as all their tweets are now protected.
Its all ending today because of you. He has written a post explaining why today.
What is his name?
I have not decided as yet whether that needs to be publicly stated
It looks like @fcablog has protected his tweets – this means that only followers can see them. Preaching to the converted!
He has shut the account for good it seems
Richard,
Possibly becasue you’ve blocked him on your Twitter account and don’t publish any comments by him? Tit for tat I suppose. Much as I agree with much of what you say, you can get rather rude and abuse to people both on Twitter and this site.
He has shut the account and the blog today
Is it true that you’ve approached his employer and professional body?
No
I wrote one tweet that did not identify the person writing the blog
As did Tim Bush
Who has also approached no one
If someone has approached his employer it is not me
Strange then that should choose to mention his employers in that tweet. An unfortunate coincidence. You do know how this looks? How this sits with claims to be a democrat, your references to freedom of expression, your campaign against the ‘Gagging Bill’?
There was good reason for mentioning his employers
But I have never contacted them on this issue
And I have never once argued for the freedom to abuse, and never will
I decided to block this twitter user a couple of years ago because I found him/her comments and blog unpleasant. I feel quite sad for this person because of all the rage they seem to feel towards those arguing for equality and justice. Whatever disappointments or sadness they seem to have had in their life, it’s coming out in a way tthat’s not beneficial for them or others. I hope this person now finds a healthier way to channel their feelings.
I agree
1. What was the “good reason” for mentioning his employers?
2. Have you contacted his employers on issues other than this one?
The reasoning for mentioning his employers was my belief that he wrote opinion for them which might conflict with the views on his blog
And to mention the fact meant that he knew I was now aware of who he was – which I had for less than 24 hours
I’d call that fair notice
I have over the years contacted his employer many times, and met the author of the fcablog in his capacity of working for them, but I have never mentioned his authorship of fcablog to them, ever, for the record
If someone has spoken to his employer it was not me, nor, I am assured, the person who advised me of his identity
I do not know who did if that has happened
This is my final comment on that issue
One positive side effect of the Christie Malry blog is that it motivated me to look up the Wikipedia entry on the 1973 novel “Christie Malry’s Own Double-Entry”, by B S Johnson, which looks like a classic – I will be buying a copy.
Forever tainted gpt me, I fear