There is a phrase I cannot get out of my mind. It is this: “There is an increasing use in the concepts of ‘bleasure’ and ‘motif’ for understanding communications offences and collecting forensic evidence”.
That word, bleasure. Why did I never encounter it while reading up on the law of tort and internet harassment? Here’s the full quote:
There is an increasing use in the concepts of ‘bleasure’ and ‘motif’ for understanding communications offences and collecting forensic evidence (Bishop 2014a). Bleasure is a term derived from French law and introduced into UK law through following King v Bristow Helicopters Ltd  2002 Scot (D) 3/3, which refers to an imposed injury, whether physical or mental, that has an sustained adverse impact on someone in either the short-term or long-term (Bishop 2014c, 1)
So, the article, a conference paper by one Jonathan Bishop, goes. And the references are also to Bishop’s writing. Also not actually peer-reviewed, as it goes, but more on that shortly.
Searching the reports of the cited case, King v. Bristow Helicopters, did not produce any reference to the word bleasure. Nor can I find it in any online lay legal reference. A friend helpfully pointed me to the apparent origin in King v. Bristow:
Since, in the event of inconsistency between the English and French texts of the Convention, section 1 of the 1961 Act provides that the French text shall prevail, I cite the French wording of article 17:
“Le transporteur est responsable du dommage survenu en cas de mort, de blessure ou de toute autre lésion corporelle subie par un voyageur lorsque l’accident qui a causé le dommage s’est produit à bord de l’aéronef ou au cours de toutes opérations d’embarquement et de débarquement.”
So, bleasure appears to be Bishop’s translation of blessure. Only, the English law already covers this using entirely commonplace words: injury or harm. Check a Google translation.
The carrier is liable for damage sustained in case of death, injury or any other bodily injury suffered by a passenger if the accident that caused the injury occurred on board the aircraft or during any operations embarkation and disembarkation.
You’d sort of expect that “increasing use” would encompass more than repetition by the person who coined the word, but that genuinely does not appear to be the case here. I cannot trace anybody else who thinks this is a thing.
So why have I even heard of this bizarre phrase and its self-referential promoter?
Meet Jonathan Bishop: Vanity spammer
Bishop is a world renowned expert on trolling and cyberstalking. We have this on the authority of none other than Jonathan Bishop. Sorry, that should read: no-one other than Jonathan Bishop. He is the founder and sole proprietor of the “centre for research into online communities and e-learning systems” or crocels, affiliated with the University of Swansea Institute of Life Sciences. Oh, wait, not, it’s not associated with ILS in any way at all.
An obvious friend or sockpuppet of Bishop added numerous references to his websites and books on Wikipedia. I removed them. Bishop reverted one particular removal with the edit summary “Clearly an act of cyberstalking and bullying of me to try to diminish my reputation in the eyes of others. Please note WP:Civil”. That’s pretty special in itself, since an accusation of bullying and cyberstalking is not usually considered an exemplar of civil behaviour on Wikipedia, but most of all it’s a giant “WTF?” – there’s no obvious reason why this would be anything other than what it purports to be, the removal of fringe view with no reliable sources. Bishop’s Character Theory is sourced solely to his own self-published writings, that’s not how Wikipedia works.
I reverted an edit on this page which removed a section referring to a character theory I am noted for. I have been subject to significant cyberbullying and harassment in my occupation as an Internet trolling and cyberstalking expert and I think this page should be semi-protected as the section relating to me has been wiped by many people who breach WP:Civil and WP:COI by doing so.
Yes, essentially I provide services to help victims of trolling and raise awareness of trolls so people come forward and the times this article is vandalised coincides with such activity. For instance, most recently it has been the Kiwi Farms website I have been raising awareness of and this has resulted in things as severe as my local media being contacted and told babies at local hospitals will be mutilated. https://kiwifarms.net/threads/jonathan-bishop-crocels-news-research-press-base-trolling-academy-dzon-bishop-bonathanjishop.23547/ http://news.crocels.com/facts-data-information/kiwifarms/
Kiwifarms? A website I had never heard of, which I have to say I do not much like the look of. They, in turn, really don’t like the look of Bishop. Bishop has fallen into the classic crank mindset, where any criticism or dissent can only be the work of your nemesis. I call this Sucatraps Syndrome – Spartacus in reverse. Oh, but wait, he expanded it:
Yes, I provide services to victims of cyber-bullying, including raising awareness of those who have trolled them. In the past this has included ‘PontyTown’, ‘Urban75’ and most recently ‘Kiwi Farms’ and ‘Quackometer’. Immediately following people from those websites have vandalised this page. In terms of Kiwi Farms the actions of the users have included contacting my local newspaper and saying they will mutilate babies in local hospitals. The conflict of interest is there for based on retaliation against me because of those victims I help. The following links highlight the timing for the current vandalism: https://kiwifarms.net/threads/jonathan-bishop-crocels-news-research-press-base-trolling-academy-dzon-bishop-bonathanjishop.23547/ http://base.crocels.com/learning-objects/kiwifarms/ http://news.crocels.com/facts-data-information/kiwifarms/][http://travel.crocels.com/internet-trolling-around-the-world/kiwifarms/ http://news.crocels.com/facts-data-information/quackometer/
At last something I at least recognise. Quackometer is an award-winning blog written by Andy Lewis, a well known UK skeptic. I’ve never met Andy but we have at least one or two mutual friends.
It turns out that Bishop was involved in the court case brought against Andy by Angel Garden and Steve Paris. It’s hard to even describe this case in a way that makes sense, because Garden and Paris’ behaviour was so bizarre. They took against Andy when a comment on a post on his blog was held in the moderation queue because of the number of links it contained. Perfectly normal. What’s not normal is that they then decided he was oppressing them by not giving them a platform to shout about a court case they brought in New Zealand. Basically, by not giving them a free publishing outlet, Andy was supposedly harassing them.
And Bishop, the harassment expert, came to Andy’s defence, right? No. Actually he did the exact opposite. He wrote an “expert report” on how Garden and Paris had been harassed by Andy. Garden and Paris spectacularly lost their defamation suit, and are now trying desperately to pay the crippling costs awarded against them. I have limited sympathy: they were offered many opportunities to withdraw with no costs against them and chose instead to go to court. When you sack your lawyer because they tell you your case is hopeless, you know you have a problem. Check the judgment, it’s long but t leaves you in no doubt that Garden and Paris have departed the straight and narrow road of rationality by quite some margin.
Why would Bishop defend these obvious nutters? I can think of three reasons: First, he claims an ND and Andy Lewis is a trenchant critic of woo. Is Bishop a naturopath, or is this some made-up title of his? His webshite does not list the awarding institution or, as far as I can see, clarify the award. Second, and probably related, Bishop appears to be an admirer of the quack Joseph Chikulele Ubi. And third? He’s a crazy man.
Whatever the reason, Bishop wrote this drivel, and the Judge apparently treated it with the contempt it deserves. This of course will ahve really hurt Bishop in the feels.
Anyway, to cut a long story short, in searching for the origins of this bizarre word, Bishop’s idiosyncratic mistranslation from the French, I doscovered that virtually everything he says about himself is self-referential. He’s had Cease & Desist orders requiring him to stop using claims and logos implying institutional affiliation, he’s attacked a former lecturer for not giving him a reference, his writing references primarily himself, his “books” are published by a print-on-demand vanity press, and now he’s issued a call for papers in his International Journal of Me, Me, Me, It’s All About Me, and a meritless claim for $10,000 against the Wikimedia Foundation:
We believe that as Crocels and its members are a competitor of Wikipedia, providingservices like Crocels News, Crocels Research, Crocels Base and Crocels Travel, amongothers, the effect of your actions have been to diminish the reputation of Crocels inorder that Wikipedia can have an unfair advantage in terms of retaining users thatwould otherwise leave its platform to use ours.
Reputation? What reputation?
Compared to Bishop and his friends, Walter Mitty was tedious realist.