A couple of days ago, I saw Stewart starting to interact with the sepsis hashtag. I have no idea what his motives are, whether they are intended for self aggrandisement or borne out of legitimate concern for the cause. Frankly, I don't care. Neither is it relevant to this post.
When I saw Stewart interacting with the mother of the little boy, I went positively ballistic. With such a high volume of people discussing sepsis, it seemed to be an extraordinary coincidence that, out of all of the people to interact with, he would choose someone who I am friends with, and who I interviewed recently on here.
People who know me, my Twitter followers and blog readers, know that I am methodical, punctilious, analytical and try to confine my tweets and particularly my blog posts to facts which I can substantiate. And in this case, I fucked up. Royally. I reached, what to me appeared to be a logical conclusion, based on the tweets I saw, and on the past behaviour of the subject of this post.
In relation to sock-puppets, stalking and being a general pain in the arse, I stand by every word. People are free to interpret my posts how they see fit. Another post recently emerged, validating my sock-puppet claims against him. It is therefore, perhaps, understandable that I would draw a logical conclusion in this case.
I did draw a conclusion, and it was WRONG. Stewart did NOT initiate the conversation with the family; rather THEY picked up on one of his tweets, and responded. Now they are aware of who Stewart is, particularly in relation to our past history, they have blocked him, and elected not to interact any further with him. However, a number of posts have emerged on his blog, one, in particular is quite salient, as it assumed, as did I, that the dialogue was initiated by Stewart. Whilst it is correct that he first initiated contact with the Sepsis Trust, I feel it only right that I set the record straight with regard to his contact with the family. He emphatically did not make "first contact", and I apologise for leaping to the conclusion that he did.
I like facts. Evidence. Proof. I believe I have supplied it, in abundance, with regard to his past behaviour. In this instance, I didn't do my research properly, before opening my big pie-hole. I simply saw him interacting with a family who I have come to care about very deeply. My natural instinct was to defend them, and in attempting to do so, I failed to acquaint myself with all of the requisite facts.
Whatever Stewart's motives are for his various charity works are, I leave for you to decide. You are, almost certainly, aware of my thoughts on the subject. This isn't about his past behaviour, or his motivation. Neither is it about my opinion of his past actions. It is intended, as always, to be fair and honest.
And so, whilst it may stick in my craw, I offer my apologies for incorrectly assuming and stating that Stewart initiated contact with the family in question. I don't enjoy doing so, however, I firmly believe that if I fuck up, I should hold my hands up, admit it, apologise (no matter how much it stings to do so), and make sure the FACTS are presented, accurately, and without bias.
It is a salutary lesson that past actions do not constitute evidence, and occasionally, coincidences DO happen. In this instance, I erred, and although well intentioned, I jumped to the wrong conclusions. For that, I apologise, wholly and unreservedly.
In the fourteenth century, the numbles (or noumbles, nomblys, noubles) was the name given to the heart, liver, insides and so on of creatures, particularly of deer - what we now call offal or lights. By the fifteenth century this had moved to umbles, in spite of the fact that the words coincided for quite a while. There are numerous references to both words in Old English and Middle English writings from 1330 forward. Umbles were utilized as a fixing as a part of pies, in spite of the fact that the principal record of 'umble pie' in print is as late as the seventeenth century.
Post a Comment