I have to confront it: the struggle for The Guardian to acknowledge that it published false information about me and Angie Bray has been unsuccessful. However, I want to leave a public record of all communications I’ve had with the Press Complaints Commission, so that people can decide whether the opinions published by Calvin Tucker on his website 21stcenturysocialism.com truly reflect what happened.
But before that, a bit of context. In 2004, Calvin Tucker began to publish in the comment section of the Caracas Chronicles blog. For some reason, Tucker felt informed enough to debate Venezuelan political issues with a crowd mainly composed of educated Venezuelans living both in Venezuela and abroad. I must admit that by that time, I was already quite distrustful of foreigners suddenly singing praises to Hugo Chávez. On one occasion, Tucker mentioned a legal case he had been involved in that reached the highest court in England. As I was studying law at that time, I checked Westlaw to see if Tucker’s claims were true and found nothing. As soon as I wrote in the blog’s comment section that I found no corroboration, Tucker challenged me to meet him at a bar somewhere in London where he would “beat me up.” Here are Tucker’s own words:
Hello, Mr. “Anonymous,” tough guy of the Internet. Do you want to insult me face to face? Please email me and we can make arrangements to meet. Otherwise, fuck off and get a life. Damn.
Not interested in fighting over nothing, I declined Tucker’s challenge, yet this is how he referred to the debate:
My personal serial harasser doesn’t even have the guts to meet me in a pub in London and back up his claims that I made up a court case that I won. (Tucker would later deny ever having threatened me, claiming: “Alex, I’ve never threatened you, you’re a complete loony and a fantasist!” Tucker posted as Zin on March 4, 2009, at 3:36 PM.)
Meanwhile, I emphasized that I couldn’t find any indication in the legal database about the case Tucker referred to. But the vitriol and physical threats were not directed at me only. One could understand that Tucker felt insulted, outraged, and upset by claims regarding his encounter with justice made by a Venezuelan critical of the regime he defends so feverishly. However, his vitriol, inappropriate language, and physical threats were not reserved just for me. To other debate participants, and in the comment section of the same blog, Tucker wrote:
Example 1: Listen, Mr. tough guy of the Internet, I’m not interested in your threats. If you want to fight me, let’s meet. Otherwise, fuck off.
Example 2: Now j.scott bernard wants to fight me! This is clearly becoming surreal. But when you’re ready, scott. When you’re ready. And yes, I would kick your ass. I grew up in a neighborhood in LONDON, mate, so I know how to take care of myself. The last guy who tried it with me ended up in the hospital in an ambulance and required reconstructive surgery on his face. And no, I’m not joking.
Example 3: BUT… if you think you can intimidate me with threats, you’re messing with the wrong person. If you’re willing to fight, Mr. Loudmouth, let’s do it. But I warn you, I don’t mess around.
These threats were made during internet discussions about Venezuela, which is necessary to reemphasize: a) is a country completely foreign to Tucker, and b) whose political situation has no minimal impact on the well-being of a person who, supposedly, made a living from “headhunting investment bankers.” But Tucker undoubtedly had a weakness for totalitarian regimes and communism, hence his passionate defense of every action by the coup leader Hugo Chávez. In fact, Tucker’s “independent writings on Latin America and the Caribbean” include a statement of full support for Chávez’s coup against the democratically elected administration of former Venezuelan president Carlos Andrés Pérez, despite the loss of lives:
Example 1: My point is that the Caracazo and the disenfranchisement of the majority of Venezuelans was moral justification enough for the 1992 insurrection. In retrospect, that is, from the perspective of Chávez’s electoral victory in 1998, I think we can also say it was a tactical success, although at the time it seemed a defeat. Without 1992, as was the case with Fidel’s Moncada debacle, the final victory would have eluded the revolutionaries.
Example 2: On the contrary, I proclaim my support for the attempt to violently overthrow the corrupt government of Carlos Andrés Pérez in 1992, which had lost all pretense of democratic legitimacy when it massacred as many as 3,000 civilians and secretly buried many bodies in mass graves. (See comment from Zin—one of the aliases used by Tucker—on April 1, 2009, at 11:34 AM)
Eventually, I found information about the legal case Tucker had mentioned. It turns out Tucker was arrested for participating in the Wapping disturbances. According to court documents from the case Tucker v. Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, he was arrested in the early hours of Sunday, June 15, 1986, and charged with arson. Later, Tucker would sue the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, claiming damages for false imprisonment, assault, and malicious prosecution. He eventually won his appeal and was granted compensation for damages.
On July 26, 1994, the Press Association published an article titled “THE LYING POLICE CAN GO TO HELL, SAYS PICKETER.” In it, Tucker is described as a “peaceful picketer who participated in the bitter Wapping dispute eight years ago.” Tucker, a printer at that time, claimed that “an officer even kicked him in the head while he lay helpless on the ground…” although he clarified that the kick “didn’t cause me any particular injury.” Tucker also explained “how the lying police made him go through the worst six months of his life” and how “that terrible experience affected him profoundly, and for years he panicked if he saw a police officer walking towards him.”
Fast forward ten years, and see how well this “peaceful picketer” has become, so much so that he seems to enjoy making repeated threats to people over trivial matters, perhaps in a display to prove his manhood while “headhunting investment bankers.” I’ll return to Tucker’s miraculous recovery later.
On September 1, 2007, The Guardian’s Comment is Free published an article by Tucker titled “Friends in Low Places.” But two days prior, on August 30, he boasted of his intentions again in the comment section of the Caracas Chronicles blog:
To Boyd If you don’t like The Guardian now, you’re really gonna hate it when they publish my next article. I’ll make you famous, Alek. Or should I say infamous? Stay tuned.
When I responded that he had no power to make me famous or infamous, this is what Tucker said:
Since you have no reputation to lose, I suppose that’s true in your case. However, your Tory mates at the GLA do have one. Stay tuned.
By September 2007, my blogging and commenting rate on Venezuela had significantly decreased. Tucker, on the other hand, seemed to have gained sympathy from Venezuelan officials while continuing his alleged “thorough research and organizational mapping of financial markets.” But more on Tucker’s professional occupation later.
Immediately after The Guardian published Tucker’s article, I contacted Georgina Henry, who acts as the editor in charge of Comment is Free, to request the right of reply. Henry not only refused to grant me legal right, but she outright ignored my arguments regarding the false statements Tucker had written. Henry’s best offer was to invite me to address the “issues” raised by Tucker in the comment section of the article on Comment is Free. I declined to do so.
Almost two years have passed since then. My concern is that a Google search of my name returns that article among the results, and that’s not good when looking for a job. So, I contacted the Press Complaints Commission (PCC), hoping they would consider my arguments. What follows is the complete exchange between PCC officials and me.
Simón Yip wrote:
Date: Monday, May 11, 2009 at 14:26
Subject: Reference 092120
Dear Mr. Boyd
Thank you for your email.
Before we can assess your complaint fully, it would be helpful if you could clearly specify all the alleged inaccuracies in the article that concern you. We would greatly appreciate receiving this information within the next ten days.
I note that the article is from 2007, but remains on The Guardian’s website. This is what we say regarding articles published originally more than two months ago:
The Commission has considered the download of an article as a republication. Therefore, material that is freely available on a newspaper’s website may generally be subject to complaints, even if the article was not originally published within the last two months.
However, the Commission will consider the time elapsed between the original publication of the article and the complaint. They consider that complaints are investigated more appropriately while the circumstances remain fresh in the minds of those involved. In fact, there is less likely to be backup evidence, such as journalists’ notes, when it relates to a matter that took place long before a complaint was made.
Thus, a prolonged delay will impact the extent to which the Commission can reach a conclusion on the merits of the case. It will also affect the potential action necessary by a publication to adequately resolve the claim. The Commission will consider the circumstances that explain the delay in bringing the complaint (including whether it was possible to bring a complaint at the time of the original publication).
Our aim is to resolve all complaints that raise a potential breach of the Code in a friendly and speedy manner. Therefore, it would be helpful if you outlined a series of points regarding our procedures.
– As part of a thorough and fair investigation, we must ensure that each party to a complaint can see and comment on what the other has to say.
– The Commission is committed to processing all complaints as promptly as possible. It expects both complainants and newspapers, and their representatives, whether legal or not, to cooperate with that commitment. The Commission may take into account any unreasonable delay on either side.
– Generally, we will send a copy of each complaint letter to the editor, even if the complaint does not raise a breach of the Code. It is important for editors to be aware of criticism of their publications. Likewise, any substantive decision made by the Commission in terms of the Code will be referred to the editor.
– The Commission cannot process all complaints. Some circumstances under which we may not be able to proceed with a complaint are outlined on our website.
– The Commission may determine that your complaint does not constitute a breach of the Code. If this is the case, we will explain why the Commission made this decision.
– If, at the end of the process, you are not satisfied with how your complaint was handled, you should write within a month to the Independent Press Commissioner, who will investigate the matter and report any findings and recommendations back to the Commission. More details are included on our website.
More information about the complaints process can be accessed using this web link: http://www.pcc.org.uk/complaints/process.html
A copy of the Code of Practice adhered to by all newspapers and magazines can be accessed using this web link: http://www.pcc.org.uk/cop/practice.html
Information about our service commitments to complainants can be accessed using this web link: http://www.pcc.org.uk/complaint/charter.html.
You can find more information about the PCC on our website www.pcc.org.uk.
Please feel free to contact us if you need further advice. When you do, please quote our reference number in this email.
Sincerely yours
Simón Yip
[email protected]
Press Complaints Commission
Halton House
20/23 Holborn
London EC1N 2JD
Phone: 020 7831 0022
Website: www.pcc.org.uk