No, we don\’t have a right to anonymity. Not sure why anyone would think that we did.
Still, the secret is to do what I have done. Create an online character under a completely fictitious name (come on, I mean, really, \”Worstall\”, you think anyone is called that in real life?) and make sure to remain rigidly in character.
If things start to leak into the real world just hire some failed near drunk to carry the name in public.
Works very well, as you can see, for absolutely none of you have realised that I am actually Britney Spears now, have you?
What, some people don’t use their real name on the web!? I can’t believe that.
Not only do I use a false name, I even blog under an assumed species. The bastards’ll never find me.
Is this Polly you keep going on about fictitious too?
Britney, be careful! That old soak of an actor you hire for public occasions looks very untrustworthy, I get the distinct impression that he’d sell you out to the papers for a bottle of whiskey.
I am not really me. Everyone knows that former diplomats are not allowed to blog under Diplomatic Service Rules. Duh.
Here comes the (Un)Masked Revealer.
http://charlescrawford.biz/blog.php?single=1033
Ummm… that’s what he did: created a fictional character called “jack night”.
Given how robust this same Mr Justice Eady was in defending Max Moseley’s privacy, it just seems really weird that he can’t see that the public interest will be harmed by blowing Jack Night’s cover.
(totally different case, Mosely wasn’t courting publicity etc etc, but it still seems odd)
Actually, thinking about it….
Max Moseley MUST be a work of fiction.
Cleanthes, if only…
I’m just having a problem reconciling the concept of “failed near drunk” with your stand-in.
Unless, of course, you mean “failed to stop at the stage of being nearly-drunk”.
Don’t journalists make a thing of protecting their sources – ie secrecey. Is there a difference?