Read on Twitter
In the latest instalment of No Good Deed goes Unpunished - after the ‘leaseholders and build defects’ webinar that Jenny Evans and I did, Jenny got a voicemail message today. It said ….
“Could Jenny Evans please ring us back, it’s Richard Lewis. It’s quite urgent, it is regarding your webinar, some errors that she made on that webinar. We’re writing an article about it this coming Sunday. Can you get back to me please on [number redacted]. Thank you.”
Jenny sent it to me, in case it was someone I knew of, or understood what it was about. I didn’t. But, hey, alarm bells a) people who are actually ‘writing an article’ don’t leave that kind of message, and b) vaguely threatening message left only for the woman solicitor involved?
Why hadn’t ‘Richard Lewis’ tried to call me? (Yes, yes, the answer is obvious, but bear with me). So, I called ‘Richard Lewis’. After getting past the hello and who I am, ‘Richard’ launched into what I suspect would have been a lengthy monologue if I hadn’t interrupted…
The starting point was that Richard was ‘astonished that you had done the webinar without us being on it. We’ve been involved in every case since 2017 and you’ve got it badly wrong’. Who, I asked, politely, was ‘we’? ‘We’re investigative journalists’ said Richard …
‘And this Sunday we are writing about you and your firm and how badly you have got it wrong’. You are of course free to do so, I replied, and goodbye Mr Lewis. Ended the call.
(I talk to quite a lot of journalists, investigative or not. Mr Lewis was not a journalist in any way.)
Seconds later, I received this text. And yes I have ‘Richard Lewis’ number. (Obviously I didn’t use my personal phone for the call). So that is strike one of two on a potential harassment case.
Personally, I can’t wait for ‘Richard’ to produce his exposé on Sunday, assuming it is actually visible anywhere. I do like a laugh of a weekend. Particularly from spittle flecked ‘investigative journalists’, but…
‘Richard’, if you are reading this, don’t ever pull a move like trying to intimidate only the woman involved in a public video ever again. It makes you look like *exactly* what you are. (And if you do try again, that is strike two on a harassment offence).
(PS - yes, I guess this is partly the perils of having a profile - one gets the fruit bats - but ‘Richard’ didn’t aim at me. Now if I can’t use what profile I’ve got to work with and highlight my superb colleagues without this shit happening, that is very depressing.)
