This Just In!

[theclaud]

I see that the apparent purpose of Paley's little holiday was to reset the forum memory so that people will once again engage in good faith, having forgotten that he's basically just a honking shit-funnel for the worst opinions and the grottiest interests in Britain.

 

[BoldonLad]

I am the wrong person to comment on that as, with my receding hair, grooming is but a distant memory.

Pleased to hear that too. A dishevelled elderly letch is not a pleasant sight for the younger members of society, I would imagine.

 

[mudsticks]

I see that the apparent purpose of Paley's little holiday was to reset the forum memory so that people will once again engage in good faith, having forgotten that he's basically just a honking shit-funnel for the worst opinions and the grottiest interests in Britain.

Fear not darling Claude.

Some of us have 'rather' longer memories ...

...than others 🤔

 

[Pale Rider]

I see that the apparent purpose of Paley's little holiday was to reset the forum memory so that people will once again engage in good faith, having forgotten that he's basically just a honking shit-funnel for the worst opinions and the grottiest interests in Britain.

Another one with nothing to say other than abuse.

And all because someone disagrees with you on the internet.

Get over it, there's a good girl.

Or mount an argument, but years of posting have shown you are incapable of doing that.

Just another faux intellectual internet bullshitter who fools some of the members some of the time.

But I can't help admiring your waspish tongue.

Yes, people accused of dodgy stuff often deny it but this is the alleged victim we’re talking about here. Somehow his denial didn’t even merit the briefest end-para mention in the original story. That suggests to me that the paper wasn’t so much interested in the veracity of the claims but in peddling scandal.

I still think the denial was made late in the afternoon after the first story appeared that morning, so it would not have been possible to include it.

There were certainly gleeful headlines the next day from the others along the lines of 'lawyers says the story is rubbish', suggesting they received the statement at the same time, about 4pm on the first day, which was when the 24hr telly news services started to run it.

I don’t understand what you mean by ‘supporting the lawyer’.

The majority on here seem to be saying the story is a load of crap because the lawyer says it is.

A lawyer for one of those involved is the last person you should rely on for an indication of veracity.

Yes, you are probably right. But, of course, you'd be there defending him.

At least you've accepted the general view on here is based solely on Edwards' cuddly image, which is another one of those last things anyone should rely on when assessing the strength of a story.

You are also entirely wrong about me defending a Tory, or any other MP, caught in similar circumstances.

I would want them sacked from the Commons and stripped of their meaningless knighthood (if they had one) and also stripped of their cushy publicly funded pension.

And what wrongdoing have you discovered that the police have overlooked?

As I've said many times, this story is about whether Edwards' behaviour is acceptable - at present - because you never know what other skeletons will fall out of the cupboard.

I doubt even The Sun knew there were any other complaints, but the three or four also alleging unacceptable behaviour on sordid websites definitely strengthens the paper's hand.

Then when three or four more popped up claiming bullying in the workplace, well, that was a proper Brucie Bonus for the currant bun.

You need to begin supporting Labour and/or Starmer on here, that will be their/his death knell, on here

Good thought, I like it, will definitely send a few shivers down some leftie spines on here.

Starmer for PM, let's keep the red flag flying high, oh, and freedom for Tooting.

That'll do for starters.

 

[fozy tornip]

ths-f;dr

 

[glasgowcyclist]

I still think the denial was made late in the afternoon after the first story appeared that morning, so it would not have been possible to include it.

I initially thought the denial was issued the evening before the story broke but I think you’re right, it was the same day.

There were certainly gleeful headlines the next day from the others along the lines of 'lawyers says the story is rubbish',

Not in The S*n there weren’t.

The majority on here seem to be saying the story is a load of crap because the lawyer says it is

I haven’t seen that. Besides, as I said before, the lawyer is simply the spokesperson for the alleged victim and will be repeating what he’s told.

 

[matticus]

As regards public interest, I happen to think there is some, but the more important point is there doesn't have to be public interest in a story.

I also think people on here may over estimate what is required. For a story to be in the public interest, it doesn't have to undercover an assassination plot on the prime minister or expose a massive paedophile ring. Simple wrongdoing, in high or low places, would usually be enough.

https://www.nuj.org.uk/about-us/rules-and-guidance/code-of-conduct/public-interest.html

The above clearly shows that this story does not satisfy the "in the public interest" test. You seem to confuse this with how Sun-readers are very interested in illicit sex stories about public figures.

And I'll point out again, that your first statement is undermined by clause 6 of the code:
"Does nothing to intrude into anybody’s private life, grief or distress unless justified by overriding consideration of the public interest."

 

[mudsticks]

The Scum seemed to think it was OK to print 'paid for' 'mucky' pictures of teenagers - for years.

They only stopped this casual objectification of young womens bodies, after concerted campaigning made them 'realise' it wasn't such a good look anymore.


We're now supposed to think they're on some kind of 'crusade' to protect the well-being of young people. 🙄


Yeah right - well - again - some of us don't have such short memories.

If they truly gaf about the future wellbeing of young people they'd be reporting on galloping climate change, they wouldn't ever have promoted the clearly disastrous xenophobic misadventure otherwise known as brexit.
And they'd be concerning themselves with things like this.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/aug/30/child-poverty-link-malnutrition-rickets

As it is, the 'news'papers, and other media outlets run by the likes of tax dodging, wealth slurping Murdoch are far more keen on perpetuating his interests, and ego, by printing (as yet) unsubstantiated gossip.

Particularly if it undermines anyone seen as being 'opponents' of his 'influence empire' whether that opposition is seen to be either ideological, or fiscal...

 

[Pale Rider]

https://www.nuj.org.uk/about-us/rules-and-guidance/code-of-conduct/public-interest.html

The above clearly shows that this story does not satisfy the "in the public interest" test. You seem to confuse this with how Sun-readers are very interested in illicit sex stories about public figures.

And I'll point out again, that your first statement is undermined by clause 6 of the code:
"Does nothing to intrude into anybody’s private life, grief or distress unless justified by overriding consideration of the public interest."

There are elements of a, b, and c in the code you refer to.

Point 2 may also apply.

And no story has to be in the public interest, that merely provides a defence should the newspaper be challenged.

As I've said several times, the invasion of privacy is the bigger question, particularly in light of what happened to Cliff Richard.

If the story is found to be in the public interest, that would trump any privacy consideration.

I should also point out the original story was anonymous, which wipes out any public interest/privacy consideration anyway

No mainstream press named Edwards until he confessed it was him, at which point all bets are off.

That didn't stop a load of internet knackers speculating, no doubt the very same people who are now squawking at The Sun.

You might not like any of the above, but that has no impact on whether it's correct or not.

Also worth bearing in mind the NUJ guidelines are just that, guidelines from what, incidentally, has always been a shambolic union.

I reckon they are a reasonable summary of the law, but the matter will be decided on the real, and far more complex, law should this matter ever come before a judge.

Given all the above, particularly the anonymous nature of the original story, I can't see any court action getting off the ground.

If I'm wrong, you can look forward The Sun, and all the other papers, getting a proper hiding.

But more importantly, you will be able to say: "I proved someone wrong on the internet."

 

[matticus]

Also worth bearing in mind the NUJ guidelines are just that, guidelines from what, incidentally, has always been a shambolic union.

Do you have a more authoritative version of "in the public interest"? You keep using the phrase with some confidence, so perhaps you can educate us.

 

[matticus]

But more importantly, you will be able to say: "I proved someone wrong on the internet."

Because no-one else has ever written 40+ internet posts on a thread to prove they were right. Gotcha 👍

 

[AndyRM]

Do you have a more authoritative version of "in the public interest"? You keep using the phrase with some confidence, so perhaps you can educate us.

🍿

 

[monkers]

Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998​

1998 CHAPTER 23​

An Act to protect individuals who make certain disclosures of information in the public interest; to allow such individuals to bring action in respect of victimisation; and for connected purposes.

(1)In this Part a “qualifying disclosure” means any disclosure of information which, in the reasonable belief of the worker making the disclosure, tends to show one or more of the following—

(a)that a criminal offence has been committed, is being committed or is likely to be committed,

(b)that a person has failed, is failing or is likely to fail to comply with any legal obligation to which he is subject,

(c)that a miscarriage of justice has occurred, is occurring or is likely to occur,

(d)that the health or safety of any individual has been, is being or is likely to be endangered,

(e)that the environment has been, is being or is likely to be damaged, or

(f)that information tending to show any matter falling within any one of the preceding paragraphs has been, is being or is likely to be deliberately concealed.

Pick a minimum of one that applies.

 

[matticus]

Of course I'm being deliberately harsh with my comments about the Sun's ethics. The reality is that almost all the dodgy deeds by newspapers in the past - hacking voicemail of a murdered girl, that sort of thing - were stamped out by the Leveson Enquiry.

Thank goodness!

 

[Pale Rider]

Do you have a more authoritative version of "in the public interest"? You keep using the phrase with some confidence, so perhaps you can educate us.

It may be defined somewhere, but as I said, the bar for being 'in the public interest' is lower than many people think.

But the more I think about it, public interest is irrelevant because the original stories were anonymous.

Clearly, you cannot libel or invade the privacy of someone who is not named.

All the stories I've seen, including in the other newspapers, did not name Edwards until after he coughed the job.

Because no-one else has ever written 40+ internet posts on a thread to prove they were right. Gotcha 👍

What has the number of posts got to do with it?

You will either be able to say someone is wrong on the internet or not, but for an illustration of my difficulties, see below.

Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998​

1998 CHAPTER 23​

An Act to protect individuals who make certain disclosures of information in the public interest; to allow such individuals to bring action in respect of victimisation; and for connected purposes.

(1)In this Part a “qualifying disclosure” means any disclosure of information which, in the reasonable belief of the worker making the disclosure, tends to show one or more of the following—

(a)that a criminal offence has been committed, is being committed or is likely to be committed,

(b)that a person has failed, is failing or is likely to fail to comply with any legal obligation to which he is subject,

(c)that a miscarriage of justice has occurred, is occurring or is likely to occur,

(d)that the health or safety of any individual has been, is being or is likely to be endangered,

(e)that the environment has been, is being or is likely to be damaged, or

(f)that information tending to show any matter falling within any one of the preceding paragraphs has been, is being or is likely to be deliberately concealed.

Pick a minimum of one that applies.

Oh dear, monkers, that is the so called whistleblower's act which only applies to individuals who may want to disclose private information in the course of their whistleblowing.

Or put another way, it does not apply to newspapers.

I've seen plenty of others make similar mistakes when relying on Google Law, which is one reason why I will never quote an Act unless I am absolutely nailed on certain it is the correct one.