Saturday, 19 February 2011

Mr @Arseburgers responds to the Telegraph

The Quail believes strongly in right to reply. Guy Walters' focus on one or two Twitterers in his article, 'Jan Moir unfairly vilified by Twitter mob' without first asking them for comment is therefore uncool. Here, Arseburgers, one of those named by Walters, gives his considered response.

A couple of weeks ago it was pointed out to me by a few Twitter users that I had one of my tweets edited and quoted by Guy Walters in a Telegraph article. In it, he discusses a piece by Jan Moiron of The Daily Fail in which she accuses some 'celebs' of being less than genuine in their condolences [to other celebrities suffering grief or loss] and best wishes in the tragic events of another celebrity's life! the reason? because they had the audacity to use twitter to offer their thoughts and said condolences!

Apparently the 'twitter mob' was led by Lord Alan Sugar! news to me as not only have I not been made a member of his 'mob', I didn't follow him until after the event, only because Walters (or The chinless c*nt that I always call men called Guy, mainly cos they always drive TVR's and think their jumpers are scarves?) made me aware that Sugar may have a mob I might like to apply to be a member of.

Now here's a thing, my attempt to comment in an offensive way on Moiron's article was a completely original thought, so there Walters, do some fucking research, you can even call me ifya like, i'll let you know if I was inspired by anyone else. Regular followers know that I often post my number when I'm pissed, usually at about 3am.

Now, here's something that bothers me, young Guyster the chinless shows his absolute lack of understanding with regards twitter when like a spoilt little twat, probably called something like Guy quotes this in his article regarding The 'Godfather' of the 'mob' to which I aspire to become a member, who he believes Sugar to be: (Strangely, Lord Sugar does not mention that Moir's piece refers to his tweets as "illiterate". She's right, I follow him, and they are. You can tell Sugar made a real effort with his Moir tweet, but look at that comma after condolences! Whoops!) Now, what immediately springs to mind is, what a total and utter c*nt! did that fuckwit just critisise the punctuation in what was pretty assuredly a genuine display of condolence? Surely fucking not! Hang on a mo, i'll just check; Yup, he did. I think I need to lie down.

Walters the chinless, in his article sarcastically refers to me after writing my tweet that he edited as 'A pleasant chap called Arseburgers'. Now, as you all know, on occasion that can be true, ergo the sarcasm was uncalled for and frankly not to witty. More often than not, I'm either bland, excited, boring or bored, unpleasant and often downright fucking rude, atleast I certainly hope that's how I come accross.

The irony of the existence of Moirons article re the use of twitter in a way she does not approve leads to the irony of the existence of the great Chinlesses's' (how the fuck should I know where the comma goes, and frankly, do I give a fuck?) article leads to the only article made up of more than 140 characters that is not ironic. This article is about Journiots (see what i've done there, eh, eh, eh?, chinless called us tweeters 'twidiots'! I was so fucking impressed by his wit I adapted it!) Fucking clever eh!

In conclusion, every one that follows me on twitter for more than an hour will be aware that I have an opinion on everything from nuclear physics, micro biology, brain surgery and the lower leg hairs of the Peruvian caterpiller, shit! i've even been known to comment on stuff i'm not an authority on, such as beer and telly. So here's my point Walters the chinless and Moiron, know this, there are in my opinion two rules to the use of twitter, rule 1: 140 characters or less. Rule 2: with some character please.

Best regards (he started the sarcasm)

Friday, 18 February 2011

Response from the PCC

Received today via quailmail.

Thanks for your recent query to the PCC regarding communication you had received from the Daily Mail.

The original article was subject to a complaint which is in the process of being resolved by the newspaper to the satisfaction of the complainant. We cannot go into details of the resolution negotiated by the PCC (to respect the privacy of the complainant) but clearly the Daily Mail is addressing the concerns of the complainant.

It is the case that the PCC always does everything it can to negotiate a satisfactory resolution between complainant and the publication involved.

The PCC has not made any direct requests to bloggers or third parties. The PCC independently enforces the Editors' Code of Practice by which newspapers and magazines - who subscribe to the self-regulatory system - agree to abide. Clearly the newspaper concerned (following the wishes of the complainant, who may be distressed by the content of the original article) can only request that repeated text be removed by a blogger or third party.
Emphasis mine.

Please note that prior to this, my only communication to the PCC has been via Twitter, asking them if they could confirm that they had requested bloggers to remove content.

As yet, I have received no reply from the Daily Mail to the letter below.

Wednesday, 16 February 2011

The PCC has told us to remove our article so we'd like you to remove any evidence it ever existed from your blog, thanks.

Received today by quailmail:

Dear Sir/Madam,

It appears that you have reproduced parts of an article from our website (link below).

We have received a complaint from the Press Complaints Commission about this article and have as a result removed it from our websites and agreed to request that you do the same.

We would therefore ask that you remove this material and confirm removal.

Yours sincerely,

[name removed]
Deputy Managing Editor

Dear [name removed],

Please could you provide a copy of the PCC's ruling and the request that content be removed from the above URL. Could you also clarify the commission's specific requests on exactly what must be removed and their remit in ruling on non-newspaper blog content which - as far as I am aware - is not governed by the PCC. I was under the impression that blogs were not bound by PCC guidelines.

I would also appreciate some further information as to whether this is an ongoing complaint, if the article on MailOnline has been removed pending investigation or because it was found to contravene PCC guidelines, and, if the PCC has objected to content at the above URL, what specific issues they may have found.

Additionally, as quotes found in the blog post in question were taken from a print copy of the Daily Mail, is a notification of the ruling to be published in a future edition of the Daily Mail? I am more than happy to clarify that the original article on MailOnline has been removed and a correction provided in print, if this is acceptable.

D. Quail.

Thursday, 10 February 2011

FAO Sue Ryan. Re: Give me a job.

Via, inexplicably, The Guardian, this amazing opportunity:

Daily Mail

  • Britain’s most successful newspaper group is offering would-be reporters and writers an exciting and challenging yearlong training course, plus the chance to work at the Daily Mail and Mail Online
  • We are looking for bright, sharp, intelligent writers who believe they can be fast-tracked to the very top
  • You’ll be on the best journalism course in the business – and be paid a competitive salary while you train
  • Successful applicants will probably have completed post-graduate journalism training or had experience working in newspapers

Apply by February 21, with your CV, 200 words on why you think you could be a Mail journalist, a 200-word news story and a selection of up to six cuttings and send to Sue Ryan, Trainee Reporters’ Scheme, Daily Mail, Northcliffe House, 2 Derry St, London W8 5TT. Please send queries to

Super awesome! I'd love to work with Paul Dacre, I hear he's quite the wit.

Dear Sue,

You may have noticed (in fact, judging from the IP addresses that visit this blog, you've definitely noticed) that I've been charitably rewriting your articles - for free! - for about two years now.

As anyone can see, my edits are a massive improvement over the originals. Yes, my posts are are consistently grammatically incorrect, poorly structured, inaccurate, hypocritical, bilious nonsense but, hey, there's no greater compliment that imitation, right? I do a mean Littlejohn, too, so if the big fella's not feeling up to his 4000 mile commute, I'm happy to stand in (I will require a full brain-scrub after a day in character as Dickie L, mind.)

Like your current staff, I'm able to feign outrage at the most inane of banalities, point and scream at the most harmless of dead homosexuals, clutch the nearest pearl necklace at even the slightest whiff of brown people, and type one handed.

Hell, I've even written training guides for aspiring hacks - really, I should be employing you.

Also, a friend of mine has a cousin who knows a girl at her local which is only a few miles away from a house where a couple used to live who once spoke to a man who was related to this old lady who says she bought a car off a man who stalked a woman on Facebook, so I'm not short of leads for stories. Like, you can't make that stuff up, can you?

Obviously, I am willing to make up quite a lot of stuff for money, though.

It will please you to know I don't require any training - but I would like a hammock in my office. I will have my own office, won't I? Oh, and I'll need a fully-stocked minibar so I can take breakfast at work. I hear newspaper interns and graduates are treated well and paid handsomely, so I trust this won't be a problem.
Write back soon! I don't usually get up before 3.30pm, so don't call before then, ta.

Yours journalistically,
D. Quail (expat)

Also see other applications from Angry Mob, Anton Vowl, Primly Stable, and 5 Chinese Crackers.