File talk:PatrickHaseldine3.jpg

Fair use rationale

Because the image licence was changed today by Socrates2008, I quickly provided the following "fair use rationale":

"On December 5, 1988 I typed a letter on FCO-headed notepaper and mailed it the same day to The Guardian, which published the letter word-for-word on December 7, 1988. Although it was The Guardian that entitled the letter "The double standards on terrorism", I claim copyright of the full published text which I have wikified here. As copyright holder, I approve the use on Wikipedia of this letter as well all the letters that I sent for publication in The Guardian between 1988 and 1993."

I firmly believe that this "fair use rationale" is both appropriate and sufficient to support the original uploading of the image, which was done by my alter ego, Phase1 on February 11, 2006.PJHaseldine (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Because the image was listed yesterday for deletion, I have today corrected and revised the fair use rationale as follows:

"On December 5, 1988 I typed a letter on FCO-headed notepaper and mailed it the same day to The Guardian, which published the letter word-for-word on December 7, 1988. Although it was The Guardian that entitled the letter "The double standards on terrorism", I claim copyright of the full published text together with Richard Norton-Taylor's front page summary entitled "FO official calls Thatcher stance 'self-righteous'". As copyright holder, I approve the use on Wikipedia of the image and text of the letter as well as the text of all the letters that I sent for publication in The Guardian that are referenced here."

I have voted to keep the image.PJHaseldine (talk) 10:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you're going to have problems claiming copyright for Richard Norton-Taylor's article. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This is how I responded to EdJohnston's query on this subject:

• Comment: I assume we agree that I have copyright for my letter? Richard Norton-Taylor (after checking with me by telephone on December 6, 1988 that I intended the full text of the letter should be published in The Guardian the following day) then proceeded to summarise the content of my letter in his front page article "FO official calls Thatcher stance 'self-righteous'". Mr Norton-Taylor's words are therefore my words. You could therefore argue that he and I share a joint copyright for the front page article, but I very much doubt that he would wish to pursue such a claim.PJHaseldine (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not whether he'd object to you using the piece (assuming he and not the newspaper owns the copyright), but rather your own assumption of copyright ownership over a piece that he wrote, on the grounds that he happened write it about you and/or your article. Socrates2008 (Talk) 04:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

On the IfD page, nominator Arthur Rubin has agreed that the licence for the image should revert to "PD-self" with the proviso that Richard Norton-Taylor's piece is blanked. This has been done, so would appreciate your vote to keep the revised image.PJHaseldine (talk) 14:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Change of licence by Checkeroffacts

The licence for this image has been changed today by Checkeroffacts without discussion. The editor concerned might care to justify the change on this talk page.PJHaseldine (talk) 22:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Transcription of letter

The double standards on terrorism

It is all very well for Mrs Thatcher to inveigh against the Belgians and the Irish with such self-righteous invective. Naturally, she would not care to admit it but in the not too distant past her allegations of being soft on terrorism and allowing political considerations to override the due legal process could have been levelled at Mrs Thatcher herself.

Remember the Coventry Four? These were the four (white) South Africans brought before Coventry magistrates in March 1984 and remanded in custody on arms embargo charges. Rumour has it that Mrs Thatcher was rather annoyed with the over-zealous officials who caused the four military personnel to be arrested in Britain. Rightly, she refused to accede to the South African embassy's demand for the case to be dropped but she was keen for the Embassy to know precisely how the legal hurdles governing their release and the return of their passports could be swiftly overcome. Thus the First Secretary at the Embassy stood bail for the Coventry Four, having declared in Court that he was waiving his diplomatic immunity. (The Embassy did not, however, formally confirm the waiver.) Then a petition to an English Judge in Chambers secured the repatriation of the four accused.

Clearly, Mrs Thatcher wanted the four high-profile detainees safely out of UK jurisdiction, back in South Africa and off the agenda well before her June 1984 talks at Chequers with the two visiting Bothas. Strange that Pik Botha, the Foreign Minister, was able to find an excuse for not allowing the Coventry Four to stand trial in the Autumn of 1984.

Stranger still that Mrs Thatcher failed to denounce Mr Botha's refusal to surrender the four "terrorists" (cf. declaration by US Governor Dukakis that South Africa is a "terrorist state").

P. J. Haseldine, Information Department, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London S W 1. ---PJHaseldine (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)