Saturday, 22 November 2014

The Lenny Daykin Gang: Nancy Is Not A-Moosed!

QUESTION: Why would an 80-year-old man and an 85-year-old woman want to buy a copy of "Rudolph Valentino's Moose" just to see photographs of themselves in it, when the author didn't even know that there were photographs of them in it--and why did the said pair decide not to write to the publisher as happens in such case, and ask for the pictures to be removed, rather than consult a lawyer who deals only in accident claims, divorces, and petty matters?

QUESTION: Why did the said firm of lawyers not tell this elderly pair, and two others not quite as elderly, that for this kind of thing there is protocol--i.e., write to the publisher, and if achieving no success there, consult a libel/copyright lawyer?
QUESTION: Why did the said firm of lawyers assign the "law-suit" not to one of their partners, but to a legal executive not qualified to handle such matters?
QUESTION: Why did this legal executive assign lawyer's duties to his secretary, who amongst other things writes a series of very legal--and litigious--letters on his behalf, and signs them with her own name?
The answer to most of these questions is...MONEY. They think that I have a lot, and they want it! And they ain't getting it!
How on earth did Leonard Daykin, Winifred Brownlow, Margaret Gill and James Sanderson come to be reading such a book, having been 'made aware' that photographs were in it, of them as children, astonishes me. There are around 200 photographs in the Nancy books. I have no idea who most of them are--they came from very old family albums, some dating back to 1904, and a few were purchased on American e-bay. One or two, Jeanne thought she recognised--therefore I posted these on a group, and these were subsequently discarded.
Leonard et all are very upset that 'they' have been described in such a manner in the Nancy books, as they say that it defames them. In fact, absolutely no one would have known who the actual subjects of these pictures were--indeed, neither would I--had they not taken this action against me. They are not captioned with their names.
Mr Daykin does not like his image being described as the young Nancy, and feels that his family will now mistake him for a one-eyed, American homophobic woman with one leg shorter than the other and a tattooed vagina. He must have a very odd family who hasn't been looking at him much over the last eighty years!
Ms Gill does not like being 'mistaken' for Lord Cecil Wilde, and that she was involved with the Cleveland Street Scandal. Let's see--that would make her around 160 years old, were she still alive. And if she's not alive, why worry?
Mr Sanderson does not want to be mistaken as Nancy's child, the one who was knocked down by a car and killed in 1940.
Ms Brownlow, finally, does not wish to be mistaken as Nancy's mother, Molly, who had a passionate affair with a Red Indian chief in 1903.
NONE of these pictures were used intentionally, and of course the proper thing to do--as happened with Garbo, Dietrich and Liz Taylor--would have been to request that the pictures be used. The accidental use of such pictures, Mr Executive, does not fall under the Obscene Publications Act. Indeed, I would have remained a gentleman and never made any of these names public had not Mr Executive DEMANDED that I make a public apology, which of course left me with no alternative. So, effectively, HE is the one who has caused these people embarrassment, not myself, and in layman's terms made them look a real bunch of  sad old twits!
So, not only did I remove the 'offending pictures', I withdrew the print books from sale. Print books of this kind do not sell well--the customers prefer downloads. I informed Mr Executive of this, and received no reply--resulting in the said firm of lawyers being investigated, a process which continues--and Mr Daykin went out and bought another print copy of 'Moose'. This must have been delivered by streak lightning, for he claims he bought it on 20 October and that it arrived the next day. LIAR, Mr D. No retail site is that fast! And Mr D says that the pictures are still here. Of course they will still be there, if you've bought a copy which was left in stock--I can't toddle around all the book stores and buy them all up, and I'm certainly not travelling to Japan and Russia just to please you! 
So, to conclude, Mr Executive's SECRETARY--not the man himself--has not given instructions for a barrister to be appointed, all because of four pictures which were erroneously included in a spoof book! I'm just wondering what they are expecting of all this? The re-introduction of capital punishment and a gallows erected in their town square? Winning £1 million in compensation from me? First of all they must get past the two disclaimers in the book--the fact that any resemblance to persons living or dead is entirely coincidental, and that there is an Adult Content warning. I wish them luck. If they can prove that they are actually the people in the book, then the average age of this quartet is 110-years-old, and even Nancy didn't live that long! And of course, those accusing will be compelled--or their barrister will--to read out the offending passages to a courthouse which naturally will be packed to the rafters. I do press very well, and in his missive Mr Executive, who I am sure derived some sort of sardonic pleasure out of this, draws very elaborate attention to a sheep-shagging incident in Ilkley which involves two pairs of wellingtons, but none of the above persons!
And if this is what happens with a spoof, I'm eager to see what happens when my autobiography drops into their laps. Suffice to say, you cannot libel the dead in this country, not that this will stop them from trying to get a few bob out me!

No comments:

Post a Comment