Wednesday, 15 July 2009

Humble Pie

I have removed my previous post, given the comments that ensued. I can realise a grave mistake when made, and will try to be more thoughtful. Given that I was trying to be light-hearted rather than critical of something I do see value in, I realise I missed the mark considerably and have taken on board the comments made.




  1. My Dear Oddy,

    Not knowing anything of the comments made against your most recent post, I cannot really offer an opinion, other than the fact that I find it rather sad to see you feel the need to withdraw your post because one or two people objected to the content.
    Whatever happened to ( relatively) free speech??

  2. The general post itself, I have rewritten and have tinkered with considerably - and I may repost in the future. I do however take on board the comments more generally about the way in which I discussed the issue in question. Whilst I feel my comments were on the whole true (and I know mirrored by some others that I spoke to at the event), I SHOULD have put them better and in a less personal form.

  3. Shame Oddy, I thought it was a really good post! Especially incisive about the FRU-characters you'll come to love when you hang around their offices. I'd be interested to read a post re: your first case.

  4. This was my fault I take it? Hope my post didn't upset you oddy, i thought it was a little harsh against FRU. It was your opinion though, i was just giving mine.

    Ohh i really have a habit of getting people to retract their posts.

  5. PS Minxy

    Nothing against Oddys free speech - I just said i thought his comments were harsh and reasoned out why.

  6. worry not, I wasn't too worried by your comments Ginge as your were just voicing your view; there were others that followed which I agreed with in part about the specific way in which the post itself was constructed. I just thought it easier to retract the post.

    I would like to make clear for the record, that I do think FRU worthwhile (as I in fact stated), and am not taking part merely for my CV. That said, it doesn't mean the people involved can lecture well. I have met exceptional and internationally known barristers who can't lecture for toffee, but that is no criticism of their work.

  7. Oddy, having read the post and enjoyed it, I fail to understand why you removed it.

    Not everyone will agree with things you say. So what. I didn't read what LG said, but I am sure it was her point of view, same as you had yours. Maybe you should have asked her to delete her post instead, seeing as it was your Blog and you are in charge!

    You are on a very slippery slope if you are going to start worrying about peoples comments.


  8. As I said, it wasn't LG that bothered me; I took her opinion as just that. It was subsequent comments. the issue is basically, I am very critical of people (Which is fine), but these are easily identifiable people. That wasn't a great move.

    But thanks, glad it was enjoyed! As I said, I am prb gonna repost, just slightly differently written.

  9. I expect this was me; I recall I was fairly harsh.

    Some people have made comments about freedom of speech above. This isn't really the issue; Oddy is of course free to write whatever he chooses in his blog (well, unless he's inciting racial hatred or the like!) - and I certainly didn't intend to question that with my comment. The issue was more whether the post was advisable.

    I think this is the blogger's dilemma whenever the subject matter of a blog touches on the professional. Good blogs do contain a certain amount of personal content; that's what makes them engaging and readable. But from a pragmatic point of view, in a situation where

    a) there are a great number of competitive, driven and sadly, in some cases, backstabbing people chasing pupillage;
    b) the legal blogosphere is small and the veil of anonymity granted to participants tends generally to be thin;
    c) the legal fraternity is also fairly small,

    it just doesn't make sense to speak so unguardedly. Perhaps I am overly cautious.

    Oddy, I apologise if I misinterpreted your intentions when it comes to participating in FRU. So many people were there for the sake of their own CV I felt the need to comment. Of course the value of FRU lies both in that it provides crucial assistance to claimants and simultaneously aids the development of young lawyers - I believe good voluntary schemes should always have this mutual benefit, it's not some bleeding hearts club. Still, the mutuality of the benefit should be emphasised. From your reaction I see that you recognise this, it just didn't come through (or wasn't evident to this reader) in the original post. No hard feelings.