Friday, August 7, 2020
How are we all doing, readers?
Okay, times are not great but at least we're still here to talk about it. The sun still shines, the wind still blows and the dark days will eventually end.
For the next few minutes switch off from the world outside and enjoy a few funnies.
Stay safe, readers.
Oh, some risque content ahead.
My wife and I have reached the difficult decision that we do not want children.
If anybody else does, please just send me your contact details and we can drop them off tomorrow.
At birth, success is being alive.
At age 3, success is not pooping your pants.
At age 10, success is having friends.
At age 16, success is having a driver's licence.
At age 20, success is having sex.
At age 30, success is having money...
At age 40, success is having money.
At age 55, success is having sex.
At age 70, success is having a driver's licence.
At age 75, success is having friends.
At age 80, success is not pooping your pants.
At age 100, success is being alive.
I joined a gym and said to the trainer, “I want to impress beautiful girls, which machine should I use?”
He said, “Try the ATM outside.”
A man was very worried when he went to see a doctor.
"Doctor, I want to let you know that I have a very small penis, and I would like you to not laugh about its size."
The doctor promised and told him that he is very professional.
So the man opened his pants, and there was the smallest penis the doctor has ever seen, it was so tiny that doctor could not help but laugh uncontrollably.
After a while, the doctor apologised and said: "I'm sorry, that was very unprofessional, so what's the problem?"
To which the man replied: "It's swollen."
I'm not saying my wife's fat, but at recent fancy dress party, she went as a creature from folklore that subsists by feeding on the vital essence of the living.
She was Vampire the Buffet Slayer.
FROM THE VAULT:
A woman brought a very limp duck in to a veterinary surgeon.
As she laid her pet on the table, the vet pulled out his stethoscope and listened to the duck's chest.
After a moment or two, the vet shook his head sadly and said, “I’m sorry, your duck Cuddles, has passed away.”
The distressed woman wailed, “Are you sure?”
“Yes, I am sure. The duck is dead,” replied the Vet.
“How can you be so sure?” she protested. “I mean you haven’t done any testing on him or anything. He might just be in a coma or something.”
The vet rolled his eyes, turned around and left the room.
He returned a few minutes later with a Labrador.
As the duck’s owner looked on in amazement, the dog stood on his hind legs, put his front paws on the examination table and sniffed the duck from top to bottom. He then looked up at the vet with sad eyes and shook his head.
The vet patted the dog on the head and took it out of the room.
A few minutes later he returned with a cat. The cat jumped on the table and also delicately sniffed the bird from head to foot. The cat sat back on its haunches, shook its head, meowed softly and strolled out of the room.
The vet looked at the woman and said, “I’m sorry, but as I said, this is most definitely, 100% certifiably, a dead duck.”
The Vet turned to his computer terminal, hit a few keys and produced a bill, which he handed to the woman.
The duck’s owner, still in shock, took the bill. “$1000!” she cried, “$1000 just to tell me my duck is dead!”
The vet shrugged, “I’m sorry. If you had just taken my word for it, the bill would have been $20, but with the Lab Report and the Cat Scan, it’s now $1000."
LIMERICK OF THE WEEK:
A shiftless young man from Kent
Made his wife screw the landlord for rent,
But as she grew older
The landlord got colder
And now they live in a tent.
I told my wife she shouldn’t get upset when people call her fat
Because she’s bigger than that.
I have a fear of negative numbers...
I'll stop at nothing to avoid them.
If A is for Apple and B is for Banana, what is C for?
A bus station is where a bus stops. A train station is where a train stops.
On my desk, I have a work station..
Thursday, August 6, 2020
Time for another poem, dear readers, this one about the classic story of the blind men and the elephant, in its way as illuminating and iconic as the Three Wise Monkeys. My recollection is that it has previously been posted in Bytes.
The narrative is set long ago when knowledge and experiences were more limited, when a number of blind men had heard of a wondrous animal that had been brought to their village, an elephant. Each sets out to find out what this reportedly amazing animal looks like and each feels a different part of the elephant. Each blind man believes that he knows the truth, not realising that each has only a part of it, causing them to argue long into the night with none giving way.
In this current age truth is being besieged on all fronts – by political correctness, revision of history, declarations of fake news, deniers of the patently obvious, the sacrifice of truth so as not to upset trade partners and the instantaneous spread of packaged opinions via the internet and social media.
So having told you the story, commented on it and probably written about it before, why again?
For two reasons. The first is that truth has never been more challenged than it is now. The second is that I recently came across the Blind Men and the Elephant story in the form of a poem. It is by John Godfrey Saxe, the poet who penned the poem about the struggling barrister who ends it all by jumping in a well, which I posted last week.
When I looked up bio info on the poetic Mr Saxe (1816-1887), I found that he was an American lawyer and later poet known for his re-telling of the Indian parable "The Blind Men and the Elephant", which introduced the story to a Western audience.
A related concept, known as the Elephant Test, is one that is sometimes used by lawyers and has even quoted by judges, as in Cadogan Estates Ltd v Morris; EWCA Civ 1671 (4 November 1998) (at paragraph 17) where Lord Chief Justice Stuart-Smith in the England and Wales Court of Appeal stated:
“This seems to me to be an application of the well known elephant test. It is difficult to describe, but you know it when you see it.”
So, having concluded my opening address, I call Mr Saxe and his poem:
The Blind Men and the Elephant
by John Godfrey Saxe
It was six men of Indostan,
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.
The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!"
The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried: "Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!"
The Third approached the animal,
And, happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a snake!"
The Fourth reached out his eager hand,
And felt about the knee:
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," quoth he;
" 'Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!"
The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!"
The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a rope!"
And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right
And all were in the wrong!
So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Wednesday, August 5, 2020
After a concert, Arthur Rubenstein was approached by a woman who was dragging a nine-year-old boy. “Please, Mr Rubenstein,” she said, “I want you to hear my son play the piano.” “Madam,” the pianist said, “I’m very busy. I don’t have time to hear every child play the piano.”
But the mother persisted until Rubenstein finally agreed to an audition the next day. The little boy, his legs barely touching the pedals, played a Chopin waltz. When it was over, Rubenstein said, “That is undoubtedly the worst playing I’ve ever heard.”
The mother nodded and said to her son, “You see? So now will you give up your piano lessons and try out for Little League?”
George Bernard Shaw
When George Bernard Shaw was still a young critic he was invited as a guest to a family party. When he came into the room, the daughter of the host was playing the piano.
“I have heard,” she said very sweetly, turning round to the visitor, “that you are fond of music.”
“I am,” answered Shaw, “but never mind! Go on playing!”
Samuel Johnson was an English writer and the author of the famous Dictionary of the English language. Once a gentleman asked him how he had compiled his great dictionary. He smiled and answered, “Oh, it was like quarreling with my wife — one word led to another.”
Robert Burns, the great Scottish poet, loved common people and wrote for them. Though he had little formal education, he was well read and talented. He began to be recognised as a poet when his first poems were published in 1786. He was known as a very witty man.
One day when Bums was walking near the docks, he heard a cry for help. He ran towards the water. At that moment he saw a young sailor jump off a boat that stood near the dock. The sailor began to swim towards the man who was calling for help. Though it was not easy, the sailor saved the man.
The man who was saved from drowning was a very rich merchant. He thanked the brave sailor and gave him a shilling. The sailor was embarrassed.
A large crowd of people gathered round them. All the people considered the sailor to be a hero. They were displeased when the rich man gave the brave soldier only a shilling. Many of the people shouted loudly and protested against it. But the rich merchant did not pay any attention to them.
At the moment Robert Burns approached the crowd and wondered what the matter was. He was told the whole story.
He was not surprised at the behaviour of the rich merchant and said: “Let him alone. The gentleman is the best judge of what his life is worth:.
Arthur Conan Doyle
Arthur Conan Doyle, the famous author of detective stories (notably the Sherlock Holmes stories), once came to Paris. He hired a cab at the railway station to go to the hotel.
“What hotel would you like to go to, Mr Conan Doyle” asked the cabman.
The writer was greatly surprised. “How do you know my name?” he asked.
“Well, it’s simple,” the cabman said. “The other day I read in the newspapers that you would probably visit Paris. Then I noticed that your suit was made of good English tweed.
“Wonderful!” said Conan Doyle. “You are a born detective!”
“Thank you, Sir,” the cabman replied. “But another fact also helped me to identify you.”
“What is it?” asked the writer.
“You see, your name is written on your luggage.”
Mark Twain, the famous American writer, was travelling in France. Once he was going by train to Dijon. That afternoon he was very tired and wanted to sleep. He therefore asked the conductor to wake him up when they came to Dijon. But first he explained that he was a very heavy sleeper. “I’ll probably protest loudly when you try to wake me up,” he said to the conductor. “But do not take any notice, just put me off the train anyway.”
When Mark Twain woke up, the train was already in Paris. The angry writer ran up to the conductor and said, “I’ve never been so angry in all my life.”
The conductor looked at him calmly. “You are not half so angry as the American whom I put off the train at Dijon,” he said.
Tuesday, August 4, 2020
News item and Godwin’s Law:
A news item about the Covid restrictions introduced over the weekend in Victoria where the Covid numbers are spiking:
Anti-mask conspiracy theorists described the new rules as 'absolute tyranny'. '[Victorian] people need to revolt like the Germans,' wrote one Facebook user.
The post was referring to anti-lockdown protests in Germany on Saturday that saw an estimated 17,000 people march through Berlin, some holding signs such as 'Corona false alarm'. In a reference to Nazi Germany, another conspiracy theorist jumped on board saying: 'Next will be for your own good get on the train and people will believe.' In Nazi Germany, Jewish people were put on a train from the ghetto that led straight to the death camp of Auschwitz. The phrase suggests people should not trust governments when they tell people to do things for their own good.
More Nazi references were made comparing Victoria's coronavirus crisis response to the Reichstag fire that preceded Adolf Hitler's rise to power.
Unlike Nazi Germany, Victoria's coronavirus restrictions have been imposed to save people's lives and protect the most vulnerable, not to persecute them.
Daily Mail August 3, 2020
The above item made me recall Godwin’s Law, something I posted about briefly in 2010.
Some comments . . .
What is Godwin’s Law?
Godwin’s Law is an internet adage that was formulated by Mike Godwin in 1989. It holds that:
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."
His meaning was that, given enough time, all discussions—regardless of topic or scope—inevitably end up being about Hitler and the Nazis.
His intention was to make participants in a discussion more aware of whether a comparison to Nazis or Hitler is appropriate, or whether it is simply a rhetorical overreach.
A wider usage:
Godwin’s Law has been elevated into a wider and more general formulation that holds that invoking Hitler or the Nazis as a debating tactic in any argument not directly related to World War 2 or the Holocaust automatically loses the argument.
This is because invoking such significant and horrible events in a debate is inappropriate and in poor taste.
Put more simply, as a general rule, the first to play the Hitler Card in a discussion other than on Hitler or the Holocaust has lost the argument.
In 1953, prior to Godwin’s formulation of Godwin’s Law, ethical philosopher Leo Strauss had already formulated an observation relating to the playing of the Hitler Card.
He called his observation “Reductio ad Hitlerum” (Latin for “reduction to Hitler”) and it holds that:
“A view is not refuted by the fact that it happens to have been shared by Hitler.”
The application of Godwin’s Law can be an abuse of argument, a distraction, a diversion and even a means of censorship where the Nazi/Hitler comparison is actually appropriate.
Mike Godwin himself has said that the overapplication of Godwin’s law has in some cases had the opposite effect, that although intended not to trivialise the Holocaust, it has instead sometimes relegated the Holocaust into a minor p;lace. According to Godwin: “I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler to think a bit harder about the Holocaust."
The election of Donald Trump as President of the US has refocused attention on Godwin’s Law with even Mike Godwin having to announce that there can be exceptions to his Law.
In December 2015 Godwin stated "If you're thoughtful about it and show some real awareness of history, go ahead and refer to Hitler when you talk about Trump, or any other politician."
Godwin has also stated that it was acceptable to call Brazilian politician Jair Bolsonaro a “Nazi” and to call US refugee detention "concentration camps".
So does Godwin’s Law apply to the above news item?
Arguments can be made both ways but as someone whose parents suffered at the hands of the Nazis in occupied Holland, with my mother having the scars of German shrapnel on her thigh and my father twice escaping trains taking him to slave labour camps, it seems to me that the wearing of a mask is far removed from that.
News item, not Godwin’s Law:
After reading the above news story yesterday morning, the next read was an item from the online Smithsonian magazine that I receive as a subscriber.
The item to which I am referring is an article reporting that last week a court in Hamburg, Germany, convicted Bruno Dey, a 93-year-old former Nazi concentration camp guard, in what will likely be one of the country’s last Holocaust trials.
Bruno Dey, a former SS watchman at the Stutthof concentration camp, hides his face behind a folder as he arrives for a hearing in his trial on July 23.
From the article:
Dey worked at the Stutthof concentration camp in Poland between August 1944 and April 1945. Found guilty of 5,230 counts of accessory to murder—a figure based on the number of people who died at Stutthof during his tenure—Dey received a two-year suspended sentence.
Over nine months of court proceedings, more than 40 co-plaintiffs from France, Israel, Poland and the United States testified against the former SS guard, according to CNN’s Nadine Schmidt. Witnesses detailed the many atrocities committed at Stutthof, which was established in 1939 as the first wartime concentration camp outside of Germany.
Stutthof, located east of Gdańsk in northern Poland, housed upward of 100,000 prisoners during its six years in operation. In total, more than 60,000 people—around half of whom were Jews—died of disease, starvation, exhaustion and execution. Court documents indicate that victims were gassed with Zyklon B, shot in the back of the head and denied medical care.
Per a press release, prosecutors argued that Dey, a tower guard tasked with ensuring inmates didn’t escape or revolt, “knowingly supported the insidious and cruel killing of prisoners” as a “small wheel in the machinery of murder.”
During the trial, judge Anne Meier-Göring refuted Dey’s claim that he’d had no choice in the matter, saying: “You still see yourself as a mere observer, when in fact you were an accomplice to this manmade hell.”
A watchtower at Stutthof concentration camp
Prisoner barracks at Stutthof concentration camp, as seen after liberation
3 August 2020
From the same Smithsonian Magazine, a story that an art historian has identified the spot where Vincent van Gogh (who died 130 years ago on 29 July 1890) painted his final work
The painting is called Tree Roots:
According to a commentary on the Van Gogh Museum website:
This painting seems at first sight to consist of a jumble of bright colours and fanciful abstract forms. Only after that do you realise that it shows a slope with tree trunks and roots. These are trees used for timber, growing in a marl quarry. Such quarries could be found around Auvers (FR). The work was not entirely completed. That explains its unfinished appearance. It is probably Van Gogh's very last painting. Andries Bonger, the brother-in-law of Vincent's brother Theo, described it in a letter: 'The morning before his death, he had painted a sous-bois [forest scene], full of sun and life.'
Researcher Wouter van der Veen was able to discover the tree roots painted by Van Gogh by sighting a 1905 postcard which shows on the left half a cyclist next to a steep hill with knotted roots; on the right, Van Gogh's painted rendition of the same hillside in colour,
Ahead of the 130th anniversary of the artist’s July 29 death, Emilie Gordenker, director of the Van Gogh Museum, and Willem van Gogh, great-grandson of Vincent’s brother Theo, unveiled a commemorative plaque at the newly identified site.
A 1905 postcard overlaid with Vincent van Gogh's 1890 painting of the same spot
The same view of roots that van Gogh likely saw 130 years ago, pictured here on 15 May 2020
2 August 2020
Monday, August 3, 2020
Sunday, August 2, 2020
By the way, the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games were originally scheduled to take place between 24 July and 9 August 2020 but was postponed in March 2020 as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite being held in 2021, the Games of the XXXII Olympiad will keep the name Tokyo 2020 for marketing and branding purposes. This is the first time that the Olympic Games have been postponed rather than cancelled. The Opening Ceremony of the Olympic Games Tokyo 2020 will now be held on 23 July 2021.
In the course of giving advice to a client yesterday I happened to mention that the client should be careful to avoid the Streisand Effect.
I posted about that phenomenon in Bytes on July 3 2011.
It is worth another airing, if only for the lawyers among us to add it to their legal advice bank.
On Streisand, Injunctions and Footballers
I recently came across the term Streisand Effect. This is when a person, often a celebrity, seeks to have information censored, suppressed or removed and the attempt backfires by causing much more attention than the item might otherwise have had.
It is named after an intervention by Barbara Streisand. In 2003 Kenneth Adelman was concerned with coastal erosion in California. His website contained over 12,000 photographs of the California coastline recording such erosion, amongst them an aerial photo of Barbara Streisand’s coastal Malibu home.
Notwithstanding that the photograph had received virtually no attention, Streisand filed a lawsuit to have the photograph removed on the basis that it invaded her privacy, thereby bringing both the photograph and her home to considerable prominence. The publicity generated by Streisand’s lawsuit helped drive 420,000 visits in a month to the site where the photo was published. According to documents filed in court, images of Streisand's house had been downloaded only six times before the legal action.
The term Streisand Effect was coined by Mike Masnick in 2005. It is likely that Barbara Streisand's name will now survive in that context long after her movies and music are forgotten
With the ease with which matters are posted and distributed on the internet, the Streisand Effect has scope for considerably wide and rapid dissemination when someone seeks to block information.
Recently in the UK there have been a number of cases where the Streisand Effect has focused attention on what have been referred to as “superinjunctions”. This is an injunction that not only restrains facts and allegations, it also prohibits disclosure of the existence and details of the injunction itself. An example of a superinjunction is that obtained in 2009 by a company Trafigura in respect of its handling of toxic waste. The company and its attack dog lawyers managed not only to restrain reporting, the judge prohibited even disclosure of an injunction being in place, a total white out. It came to light when raised in Parliament under the cover of parliamentary privilege, allowing the journalists to report on the original data and on the attempts to suppress it. The media is allowed to report on proceedings in Parliament and on what is discussed in Parliament.
Restraining journalists from writing a story is like waving the proverbial red rag at a bull, ensuring that once the restraint is lifted or circumvented, the coverage will be considerable and possibly more critical.
Apart from parliamentary disclosure, superinjunctions have also been defeated by being leaked. Circulation on the internet has then resulted in widespread discussion, often with follow up media attention.
By May 2011, the magazine Private Eye claimed to be aware of 53 superinjunctions and anonymised privacy injunctions in the UK, although an official report into superinjunctions claimed that only two had been issued since January 2010.
A number of superinjunctions have been raised in Parliament, including most recently that of prominent Manchester United footballer Ryan Giggs. Giggs had obtained a superinjunction to restrain disclosure of, and comment upon, an alleged affair with Welsh model and Big Brother participant Imogen Thomas. The newspapers champed at the bit to disclose the identity of the footballer and his dalliance, one even publishing his photograph on the front page with only the eyes blacked out, with the word “Censored” in capital letters. Much of the newspaper coverage contained criticisms of superinjunctions and the restrictions on both freedom of speech and the liberty of the press.
On 23 May 2011 the British Prime Minister David Cameron, commented:
"It is rather unsustainable, this situation, where newspapers can't print something that clearly everybody else is talking about. But there's a difficulty here because the law is the law and the judges must interpret what the law is. What I've said in the past is, the danger is that judgements are effectively writing a new law which is what Parliament is meant to do. So I think the government, Parliament, has got to take some time out, have a proper look at this, have a think about what we can do, but I'm not sure there is going to be a simple answer."
The same day British MP John Hemming (pictured above) disclosed in Parliament that the person involved was Ryan Griggs. The restraint on reporting had acted as a log jam in a river, with more and more information and pressure built up in the media files. Once Girggs' name was released, the logjam broke. The flood of information was both huge and critical, a super Streisand effect after the superinjunction was no longer alive.
More and more information was released. The wife of Giggs' brother Rhodri, a woman by the name of Natasha, said that she had been having an affair with Ryan for eight years and that she was revealing this because she had been shocked to find out that Ryan had been cheating on her with Imogen Thomas. She also later revealed that she had had a secret abortion when she had conceived with Ryan Giggs. Rhodri then dumped Natasha. The publicist for Imogen Thomas, Max Clifford, declared that Imogen was heartbroken to find out that Ryan had cheated on her with his brother's wife, adding that the superinjunction was "the worst own goal of his life." There is speculation that the intent of the superinjunction was to stop Imogen Thomas and Natasha Giggs from finding out about each other.
Left: Ryan Giggs with wife, Stacey.
Centre: Imogen Thomas
Right: Natsha Giggs
MP John Hemming was criticised by a number of persons, parliamentarians included, for abusing parliamentary privilege and for conducting himself above the law. He responded that the identity of the footballer was already known outside Parliament and was in the public domain. He commented that he would not have been in contempt if he had made the same statements outside Parliament and that, furthermore, he was prompted by the fact that Giggs’ lawyers had obtained a High Court order asking Twitter to reveal details of users who had revealed his identity after thousands named him. It appeared that the attack dog lawyers were going after those Twitterers.
A variation on the superinjunction is what has come to be called “the hyperinjunction”, a superinjunction that includes an order that the injunction must not be discussed with members of Parliament, journalists or lawyers. One such hyperinjunction was obtained at the UK’s High Court in 2006. It prevented disclosure of an allegation that paint used in water tanks on passenger ships can break down and release potentially toxic chemicals. It became public knowledge in Parliament under parliamentary privilege.
According to Niri Shan, the head of media law at the legal firm Taylor Wessing:
"I have never seen a super-injunction that bans someone from speaking to an MP. One of the fundamental rights that you have as a citizen is that you should be able to speak to your MP, particularly if it relates to matters of public concern. This is the development of privacy law through the courts as opposed to Parliament legislating on it. It is deeply concerning, and undermines freedom of speech."
The hyperinjunction was disclosed in Parliament in March 2011 by British MP John Hemming, who would 2 months later disclose Ryan Griggs’ identity. Hemmings disclosed the hyperinjunction when he learned that an individual who had suffered adverse health effects from drinking the poisoned water had received a 2 week suspended prison sentence for breaching the hyeprinjunction. What had the individual done? He or she (the gender is not known) had simply consulted a lawyer about whether the lawyer would take on the case on a no win/no fee basis.
Some more examples of the Streisand Effect, from:
In February  the Buzzfeed website published a selection of singer Beyonce's "fiercest moments" - mocking her facial expressions while performing at the Superbowl. Her publicist reportedly contacted it to ask that seven of the most "unflattering" photos be removed. Buzzfeed refused and republished exactly this selection with the headline: "The 'Unflattering' Photos Beyonce's Publicist Doesn't Want You To See". The exposure of the unflattering photos was magnified.
A few months later it was reported that lawyers for Pippa Middleton, sister of the Duchess of Cambridge, had asked for the removal of a parody Twitter feed, which offered ridiculously obvious lifestyle advice in her name, such as "Avoid getting lost by consulting with a map" and "A party isn't much fun without people attending". Its following increased.
In 2008 the Church of Scientology reportedly tried to get a video featuring film star Tom Cruise talking about his faith, designed for viewing by its followers only, removed from websites after it was leaked. The publicity meant it became shared more widely.
In 2012, Argyll and Bute Council banned nine-year-old Martha Payne from taking pictures of her school meals and posting them, along with dismissive ratings out of 10, on a blog. Her family complained and this was overturned, amid much publicity. To date the blog has had more than 10 million hits and Martha has raised more than £130,000 for charity.
You don't need to be famous to suffer from the Streisand effect. Spaniard Mario Costeja Gonzalez fought a long legal battle for the right to be forgotten. He complained that a search of his name in Google brought up newspaper articles from 16 years ago about a sale of property to recover money he owed. He enjoyed a landmark victory to establish the right to be forgotten. But it is unlikely he will ever be forgotten. As of this moment, his name conjures up hundreds of thousands of Google search results.