This discussion was started by Rod Stradling´s admission that he had kept a file on Peter Kennedy. Unless it`s components manifested themselves in his office of course. It seems from what his co-editor in his defence says that Rod saves everything that is sent to him. And presumably files it under,.......well who knows. Clearly he had a file marked "Kennedy".

When I send letters to magazines etc. I mark them "for publication" or "not for publication". I expect the ones marked ""not for publication" not to be published. It is clearly an editor´s right not to publish material marked "for publication". I do not regard it as an editor´s right to publish material that has been rejected for publication to be published later when a person to whom it refers is dead. I cannot imagine any decent editor or co-editor saving material on such a basis. Clearly Rod does do so, since according to Fred, Rod does keep all material sent to him on file. And he has now decided to publish it.

Now either Peter Kennedy was the only person who Rod was sent material about or there are others. Why not tell us who Mustrad has other files about, and at what point will they be published?

I have no idea what Peter Kennedy´s practices were regarding copywrite, royalties and so on. I know Fred is not sure since he uses the phrase "In the case of Peter Kennedy and his alleged royalty expropriation"... and I know Rod is not sure since he asks for "..concrete evidence".

I have spoken to many artists who maintain they have been ripped off by all sorts of other well-known organisations as far as royalties are concerned. There is a long thread about Green Linnet for example on Mudcat. So clearly Peter Kennedy is not the only one to indulge in this sort of thing. No doubt Mustrad has files on....well again, who knows?

Fred, whilst I am not a lawyer and do not purpport to give legal advice, I reckon I am on pretty safe ground to tell you there is no need to write "alleged". The dead cannot sue. The only people to be upset are his family. But I am sure you and your co-editor have taken their thoughts on this into consideration when you started all this. Or perhaps you believe that they don´t read Mustrad?

Actually Fred, despite the description on Mustrad of Peter as "....he seemed to be very litigious" (Pt. 13) I would have thought that anyone with a half-decent file on Peter Kennedy would know that such a threat was totally hollow. So you could have published all this previously. But as Rod says it has built up "Over the years". Maybe it just makes a decent article about now. Coincidentally of course.

Fred, you went apeshit when material about you was published anonymously. And you were correct to do so, but apparently it is OK to publish material about Peter Kennedy anonymously from Mustrad files. You should ask permission of all the people who have sent "comments and information.. [that]...has built up in my office" and those that are not prepared to have their names added to the comments and information should have their allegations discounted.

I have no quarrel with those like Jim Carroll and others on this thread who have put their names to what they have written.

My argument is not about Peter Kennedy and what he did or did not do.

It is about Mustrad admitting that they keep files on people which are then brought out anonymously as "critical reviews". And then almost holding a sword over Derek Schofield´s head - if he doesn´t publish I will.

I did believe Mustrad had higher standards. Now I am not so sure

Dave Eyre