I imagine Mr Shedd’s letter went something like this:
Dear xxx,
Thank you very much for inviting on the panel to discuss whistle-blowing. I enjoyed almost all of my time. I realise that camera were running in the room and that I consented to this being published on YouTube but I would politely request that in this instance the video not be uploaded.
This is because one of the panelists rather de-railed the discussion. I am well aware that my organisation is controversial: many people hold strong views about us, and they are fully entitled to hold their opinions.
However, I was not there to defend the Central Intelligence Agency against a rather intemperate attack on our historical record but purely to take part in a discussion on whistle-blowing.
I fully expected our own system to be questioned and was well prepared to defend a system - which while not perfect - is an honest attempt to ensure that the way we work (which f necessity is often veiled in secrecy) can be challenged by fellow employees.
I do feel that the discussion veered rather off-topic as one panelist’s very strong views over-rode her ability to engage in polite discourse. Whatever the truth or otherwise of her accusations, that was not the point of the event.
Yours sincerely
etc
And the reply:
Dear David,
Thank you for appearing- we enjoyed your contribution. We’re sorry that you feel this way. Obviously we can’t stop her publishing her own account but in this instance we tend to agree that the video would not show the Union in a good light.
Best regards
etc
Ha! Read my question and have a stab at answering it. Go on, you know you’re dying to.
Did you actually read my post? The point is not the truth or otherwise. An attack is an attack is an attack.
