Brian Wainwright

Sorry, Paul, off topic, but do you happen to know how your sister is getting on with the Joana translation?

Marie

Paul wrote:

"Brian Wainwright is spreading the word demanding that in future anything
written or said about Richard has to be accompanied by a disclaimer
stating that this is my own personal opinion and not that of the Richard
the Third Society, as if Richard were a copyrighted product.
This is absolutely unacceptable and I urge all members to let the powers
that be know this and that this outrageous claim be instantly withdrawn."

Marie:

Sorry, Paul, can you be a bit clearer. What exactly has Brian said? Could you quote or provide us with a link. It has always been Society policy that members shouldn't write in the Society's name without permission, and there is good reason for this. Is Brian going further?

Paul wrote:

"Brian Wainwright is spreading the word demanding that in future anything
written or said about Richard has to be accompanied by a disclaimer
stating that this is my own personal opinion and not that of the Richard
the Third Society, as if Richard were a copyrighted product.
This is absolutely unacceptable and I urge all members to let the powers
that be know this and that this outrageous claim be instantly withdrawn."

Marie:

Sorry, Paul, can you be a bit clearer. What exactly has Brian said? Could you quote or provide us with a link. It has always been Society policy that members shouldn't write in the Society's name without permission, and there is good reason for this. Is Brian going further?

Paul wrote:

"Brian Wainwright is spreading the word demanding that in future anything
written or said about Richard has to be accompanied by a disclaimer
stating that this is my own personal opinion and not that of the Richard
the Third Society, as if Richard were a copyrighted product.
This is absolutely unacceptable and I urge all members to let the powers
that be know this and that this outrageous claim be instantly withdrawn."

Marie:

Sorry, Paul, can you be a bit clearer. What exactly has Brian said? Could you quote or provide us with a link. It has always been Society policy that members shouldn't write in the Society's name without permission, and there is good reason for this. Is Brian going further?

Let us write a letter to Phil Stone. We can help one another compose and edit it. Then sign a hefty petition.
My thought, for what it's worth, Judy Loyaulte me lie

On Monday, December 1, 2014 2:52 PM, "'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... []" <> wrote:


It is the Society that is saying it, not Brian, who simply brought it to our attention. The quote from the latest Bulletin is, apparently:- 'Social Media - The Executive Committee has discussed concerns about statements, principally on Twitter, that purport to, or could be taken to, come officially from the Society or one of its branches or groups. Please note that all members commenting on Twitter in any matter relating to Richard III and/or the Society must include a disclaimer that any views expressed are their own and are not necessarily those of the Society. Any member found to be persistently ignoring this rule could face the sanction of having their membership revoked.' Social media includes Facebook. So we are being told that we have to include a disclaimer if we post on any matter that relates to Richard, not simply to the Society. What right does the Society have to demand this of someone writing about Richard? None, in my opinion, because the Society does not own Richard III, or have exclusive rights to his name. If this is not what the Society means by the above wording, they need to clarify it. Sandra =^..^=
From: mariewalsh2003 Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 8:34 PM To: Subject: Re: Brian Wainwright Paul wrote: "Brian Wainwright is spreading the word demanding that in future anything
written or said about Richard has to be accompanied by a disclaimer
stating that this is my own personal opinion and not that of the Richard
the Third Society, as if Richard were a copyrighted product.
This is absolutely unacceptable and I urge all members to let the powers
that be know this and that this outrageous claim be instantly withdrawn." Marie: Sorry, Paul, can you be a bit clearer. What exactly has Brian said? Could you quote or provide us with a link. It has always been Society policy that members shouldn't write in the Society's name without permission, and there is good reason for this. Is Brian going further?

I can't see how you can enforce this, especially if all the different groups of sdocial media have people that are not members of the society. What issues has it created in the past to highlight this, can you give some examples please? From: "wainwright.brian@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 2 December 2014, 9:09
Subject: Re: Re: Brian Wainwright
May I just say that although I am as angry about this as anyone else, the notice is there for all to see in the latest Ricardian Bulletin. It is not some secret I have uncovered, though I am impressed by how quickly news spreads following my mention of it on FB. By the way, although the notice refers chiefly to Twitter, it is headed 'Social Media' and therefore a disclaimer is theoretically required in any sort of social media, including this one. If this was not the Executive's intent they ought to have worded the notice more carefully. (Please note that this is my own opinion and not necessarily that of the Richard III Society. Or indeed of King Richard himself.) Brian W

It actually isn't lawful but more than that it's self-defeating because if the Society goes round chucking out members there will be no Society. Besides, this forum, set up by them/advertised by them on their website is for the purpose of discussion of Richard. They say that. I think we could start demanding our money back! On a wider issue though it does concern me that an organisation, of which we are 'shareholders' makes such decisions without due legal advice. Methinks this is what happened with a much bigger project! H From: "judygerard.thomson@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 1 December 2014, 20:42
Subject: Re: Brian Wainwright
Brian is passing this on to us... Judy

I have absolutely no idea what has prompted this but I *presume* that that the Society leadership has been embarrassed by something, someone has said somewhere, which has somehow been interpreted by an outside party as Official Society Policy.

I also think there is a danger of labeling anyone the Exec might be referring to with this new edict, as "culprits" - I don't mean to criticize its use here in the context of this discussion but there is a clear implication from the Society announcement in the Bulletin, that there have been "wrong-doers" who have done "naughty things" that have misrepresented Society policy etc. Do we know that this is the case? What if we would all disagree if we saw the "offending" tweets etc and thought they were quite legitimate....?

I think there is a great danger in the Exec trying to over-legislate and control people's freedom of speech. If you are known to be a member of the Society, and write online about Richard, that doesn't necessarily mean that your comments are backed and "approved" by the Society, nor should it mean you have to write a disclaimer all the time. If you are writing specifically about the "Society & Richard", then you might be possibly bringing the Society you belong to, into disrepute, depending on what you say (and who gets to decide?) - but are they implying that you can't have publicly declared opinions about the Society either? I disagree with a lot of what has happened in/around the Society in the last two years - some of it profoundly disturbs or depresses me - am I in danger of losing my membership if I voice this on an open forum? Where is the democracy in this organization? And we now gather from the Bulletin that the Constitution of the Society is now being re-written: apparently the membership will be consulted on that...... shame we couldn't have been consulted on other things.

I also think there is a danger of labeling anyone the Exec might be referring to with this new edict, as "culprits" - I don't mean to criticize its use here in the context of this discussion but there is a clear implication from the Society announcement in the Bulletin, that there have been "wrong-doers" who have done "naughty things" that have misrepresented Society policy etc. Do we know that this is the case? What if we would all disagree if we saw the "offending" tweets etc and thought they were quite legitimate....?

I think there is a great danger in the Exec trying to over-legislate and control people's freedom of speech. If you are known to be a member of the Society, and write online about Richard, that doesn't necessarily mean that your comments are backed and "approved" by the Society, nor should it mean you have to write a disclaimer all the time. If you are writing specifically about the "Society & Richard", then you might be possibly bringing the Society you belong to, into disrepute, depending on what you say (and who gets to decide?) - but are they implying that you can't have publicly declared opinions about the Society either? I disagree with a lot of what has happened in/around the Society in the last two years - some of it profoundly disturbs or depresses me - am I in danger of losing my membership if I voice this on an open forum? Where is the democracy in this organization? And we now gather from the Bulletin that the Constitution of the Society is now being re-written: apparently the membership will be consulted on that...... shame we couldn't have been consulted on other things.

I think a letter (or email) to Phil Stone, as Chairman of the Executive Committee, would be a very good idea.

I suspect there have been major problems caused by occasional members making contentious statements under the umbrella of the Society's name, and that the EC decided to take action. But whoever drafted this piece has gone way beyond what is either required or desirable. Often these things are unintentional - the writer knows what he/she means and fails to realise it is not what they have written. Taken literally, it would make continuation of any RIII social media site impossible for all practical purposes and so clarification is badly needed.

We would need to write soon, however, and have a volunteer to draft the letter, and I'm afraid I'm not volunteering as I am pretty well tied up all the rest of this week. Please be nice to Phil, though - he's a lovely person and has been too easy a target over the last couple of years for people angry with the Society stance on various things.

Marie

Judy wrote:

"Let no one believe Brian Wainwright originated this! He was only the messenger. The notice is indeed in The Bulletin..."
Carol responds:

Where? And in which issue? If it's the December 2014 issue, we Americans haven't received it yet. Where can we read it online? I can't navigate Facebook, so I can't find Brian's post.

I don't do Twitter, but wouldn't "IMO" be sufficient to indicate that you're expressing your own opinion, not the Society's, until they realize that they're antagonizing--and perhaps losing--their own membership with this self-defeating policy? In the meantime, I would think that a letter to the editor of the Bulletin would be the proper response.

Don't know where this font came from but I rather like it so I'm not changing it.

Carol

Judy wrote:

"Let no one believe Brian Wainwright originated this! He was only the messenger. The notice is indeed in The Bulletin..."
Carol responds:

Where? And in which issue? If it's the December 2014 issue, we Americans haven't received it yet. Where can we read it online? I can't navigate Facebook, so I can't find Brian's post.

I don't do Twitter, but wouldn't "IMO" be sufficient to indicate that you're expressing your own opinion, not the Society's, until they realize that they're antagonizing--and perhaps losing--their own membership with this self-defeating policy? In the meantime, I would think that a letter to the editor of the Bulletin would be the proper response.

Don't know where this font came from but I rather like it so I'm not changing it.

Carol

Sorry, Paul, off topic, but do you happen to know how your sister is getting on with the Joana translation?

Marie

Hi Paul,

Thanks for the update. I'm really sorry about your sister's illness - I hope she is completely recovered now. Do thank her for all her effort (and that of her friends), but it sounds from what you say as though it is now time for me to place an ad in the Bulletin calling for someone familiar with 15thC Portuguese to finish the task. What your sister has done so far may be of help in speeding up their task, so if she's happy you could email it to me at the email address for the Barton Papers Library, which you can find online or on the inside back page of the Bulletin.

Marie