The aftermath

Well, that was quite a day. I apologise for not posting anything with actual content but, because I am so self-absorbed, I wanted to keep my tale of woe at the top of the page. I promise to amend that situation presently. For now, here are a few thoughts:

• Thanks again to my legal advisers, both qualified and 'pub'. From what I can tell, I would have at least an arguable case in court but it would cost both money and time, only one of which I have in appreciable amounts.
  
• In a sudden, rash leap of enthusiasm, I have joined Twitter. I don't really understand how it works, or why people would want to know what I'm doing all the time, but if I say it's for the blog than I can probably avoid cognitive dissonance. Anyway, if you are au fait with Twitter and determined to know my Herald-related goings-on, you can find me as 'EditingLeHerald'.
• I should probably also say that I don't really blame any individuals at the Herald for what has gone on. Mr Elliott is only doing his job, and it turns out that the job of corporate lawyers in cases like this is to threaten. Similarly, although I bag them (because they are the ones with their names on the article), I don't really blame the journalists for the lack of quality at the Herald. Given the massive cuts to newsroom staff over the last decade, it's amazing that they can actually produce a newspaper every day. Still, I suppose that the premise on which I base this blog is that the answer to the ongoing problems in the newspaper industry cannot be continued cuts to staff and quality, and the tabloidisation that brings - that will merely bring death by a thousand cuts. If there is a future for the Herald, it surely lies in a quality, albeit relatively niche, product.

Anyway, thanks for your support (except for you, Anon #1). If you enjoy rubber-necking at journalistic car-crashes, feel free to stick around.