|
Post by Kelly Marks on Jan 3, 2007 19:24:56 GMT 1
Someone just emailed that they were 'surprised' in the Your Horse Q & A that I advised using a 'schooling whip firmly' on a horse that was finding it difficult to go into canter - but I've never done a Q & A for Your Horse! I went and looked at the whole answer and it's nothing to do with me whatsoever but with my photo and put that it's answered by me! I written to YH for an explanation but I'd find it hard to believe myself if someone totally denied writing something that was clearly there in print! I don't know if it's weird or someone's been really cheeky - my original (non horsey) editor for Perfect Manners kept changing my words to things like 'you've got to show him whose boss' because she thought that would be better - nearly drove me mad changing it all back again! Rant over!
|
|
|
Post by sulasmum on Jan 3, 2007 19:29:20 GMT 1
Had they put your name on the cover at all IHK to say you were in that edition ? If so they perhaps thought that your name would sell them a lot more copies. Bit of a cheek if you ask me, you go get em Kelly ;D
|
|
|
Post by circusdancer on Jan 3, 2007 19:30:33 GMT 1
How dare they? That's not being cheeky! The response goes right against all you stand for. You need to take that further Kelly. I would be passing the matter to a lawyer!
|
|
|
Post by gingitsu on Jan 3, 2007 19:33:03 GMT 1
ooo ooo can i hit them???but isnt that illegal..lets get all the RA's to donk them over the head lol
|
|
|
Post by fin on Jan 3, 2007 19:38:01 GMT 1
Lawyer, definately. That sort of article misrepresents your teaching, is misleading, nothing to say of being not originating with you at all--there probably is a legal case there. At any rate it will wake them up somewhat.
Might be sensible to slip the story that YH has been misrepresenting you into rival magazines too, just to make sure as many people as possible know and don't get the wrong idea. I very much doubt that YH are going to publicise the fact that they scrwed up, so the idea that you advocate belting some poor horse with a whip is going to be firmly embedded in some readers' minds by now.....
|
|
|
Post by julz on Jan 3, 2007 19:39:56 GMT 1
I don't read YH anyway...they tell porky pies......they've just reinforced my beliefs now......
|
|
|
Post by mags on Jan 3, 2007 19:40:17 GMT 1
Will have to have a look, I cant believe they could be so stupid, you would think they would now better. Heck if your using someones name without permission at least have the sense to put an answer that matchs there beliefs. Id definately take this further too much of it going on. I hate the way feed companys use ppls names and horses name s to sell feed when horse has never touched feed in its life. Same sort of thing using someones name wrongly to sell something
|
|
|
Post by chrissiew on Jan 3, 2007 19:42:16 GMT 1
Must admit I read that a few weeks ago and was more than mildly surprised. I would definitely take it further, as it is your reputation at stake and very cheeky of them indeed. May just make me not buy it in the future, as I don't like that sort of "misunderstanding" at all.
|
|
|
Post by amelia on Jan 3, 2007 19:49:50 GMT 1
OMG shocking - definitely take it further, how dare they do that to you.
|
|
suzieq
Grand Prix Poster
The mind is like a parachute, only really useful when open
Posts: 2,124
|
Post by suzieq on Jan 3, 2007 19:50:40 GMT 1
Oh I have it here in front of me its issue 290 and it does look like its Kelly answer, above the answer in bold it says 'Natural horsewoman Kelly Marks advises....'!!! It doesn't say firmly but it does give the firm impression that you get him to 'respect the stick' I'd definatetely persue that kelly, perhaps you'd be willing to overlook the lible angle for a bit of positive 2 page spread that you get to approve final edit?/!!
|
|
|
Post by gwenoakes on Jan 3, 2007 19:56:45 GMT 1
Oh thats not playing the game at all. Can you not get them to put a retraction (sp) in another copy or an apology Kelly? If I were you I would put a request in writing to, so that you have proof that you dont agree with what they have done and they are not your ideals. Good luck.
|
|
|
Post by janetgeorge on Jan 3, 2007 20:10:52 GMT 1
That is definitely one for the Press Complaints Commission, at LEAST! In fact, in your shoes, Kelly, I'd be speaking to a good libel lawyer as the content of the article is arguably defamatory! It could damage your reputation, cause you financial loss, etc. etc.
Hell, I'm just a small local trainer and if they did that to me, I'd be looking for £20,000 damages (and I have nothing against the use of schooling whips in the right situation - but that certainly ISN'T on a horse who is finding it difficult to go into canter!)
PM me if you want contact details for a lawyer who is the nearest thing to a Pit Bull Terrier in court!! And is very equine savvy!
|
|
|
Post by wendyihts on Jan 3, 2007 21:15:46 GMT 1
I'm glad they've done this. It means that, by telling such blatant porkies, I can now discount all the other drivel they come out with and no longer will bother wasting 6 euros on the wretched publication at international airports!
What an utter and total cheek of them!
|
|
|
Post by azura on Jan 3, 2007 21:24:44 GMT 1
i never read it anyway but it does seem that they have over stepped things. i agree demand a retraction and an apology, or get the lawyers. There is only one place for whips and that not in the stable yard, i'll leave the rest to your imagination. LOL
|
|
|
Post by jen1 on Jan 3, 2007 21:25:21 GMT 1
cheeky beggars, i hope the novice comic, ops i mean magazine buyer/reader See's the retraction, i think they need to be doing some serious groveling. and some really nice give away's
|
|