This Just In!

[spen666]

I'm fully aware PR of the purpose of the act, but the basic principles remain.

I guess it's natural that you wish to protect the reputation of yourself and your colleagues, but as unpopular with you as it may be, the public think that press hacks are scum because they keep showing us their character.

I also acknowledge that Mosley was not successful in his bid to the ECtHR with regard to pre-notification. He did have other successes of note though regarding the invasion of his privacy.

Sex scandal and further legal issues​

In 2008, Mosley won a court case (Mosley v News Group Newspapers) against the News of the World newspaper which had reported his involvement in what they said was a Nazi-themed sex act involving five women, on the grounds that it had breached his privacy. Justice Eady ruled that, despite one of the attendees wearing a military uniform, there were no Nazi connotations to the orgy.[140][141] As a result, in 2009 Mosley brought a case (Mosley v United Kingdom) against the UK's privacy laws in the European Court of Human Rights, in a bid to force newspapers to warn people before exposing their private lives so they could have the opportunity to seek a court injunction. The case was rejected by the court on 10 May 2011 as they argued that a "pre-notification requirement would inevitably affect political reporting and serious journalism."[142]

In July 2011, The Daily Telegraph reported that Mosley was financially guaranteeing the court costs of claimants who may have been subjected to phone hacking by the News of the World. Mosley refused to comment at the time, but he later gave a television interview to the BBC and a telephone interview to Reuters where he confirmed the story.[143]

Mosley launched legal action against Google, in an attempt to stop searches from returning web pages which use the photographs from the video used for the News of the World story.[144] On 6 November 2013, in Mosley v SARL Google, a French court sided with Mosley and ordered Google to prevent its search engine from providing links to images of Mosley engaging in sexual activities from the video. The Register suggested the ruling would lead to a Streisand effect, increasing interest in the images, which are still findable through other search engines.[145] At the Leveson Inquiry, Mosley stated his reasons for pursuing Google:


Mosley launched similar legal action against Google in Germany. In January 2014, the German court also ruled against the American company.[147] In giving its verdict, the court stated, "that the banned pictures of the plaintiff severely violate his private sphere."[148]

In an interview with Der Spiegel following the judgement, Mosley said: "Strictly speaking Google has got to obey German courts in Germany and French courts in France. But in the end it has to decide whether it wants to live in a democracy. Google behaves like an adolescent rebelling against the establishment. The company has to recognise that it is a part of society and it must accept the responsibility which comes with that."[149] Mosley then launched proceedings against Google in the UK. All the cases were eventually settled in May 2015.[150]

You do realise the paper named Mosley
You do realise the papers did not name Edwards ( until he had outed himself/ been outed by his family)


Quoting the Mosley case is as irrelevant as quoting the McVities Jaffa Cake / Biscuit case would be

 

[monkers]

You do realise the paper named Mosley
You do realise the papers did not name Edwards ( until he had outed himself/ been outed by his family)


Quoting the Mosley case is as irrelevant as quoting the McVities Jaffa Cake / Biscuit case would be

I do.

I do.

I also recognise that he lost the pre-notification case at the ECtHR.

But he did win some of his cases on the grounds of privacy, which makes a point about there is some precedence concerning the balance of rights of the individual to privacy and the rights of the press to publish, and where the balance of the public and of interest to the public may lie. So I don't see it as irrelevant, or exactly the same, but similar enough to be of interest.

There is some merit in the argument that The Sun would know that putting the BBC in the position of needing to hold an investigation would lead to the suspension of the alleged perpetrator; and to that end it would be all but impossible to protect his identity.

I'll ask you to note that there were Conservative MPs already prepared to name Edwards in the house using parliamentary privilege, while all the time protecting the identity of one of their own whom has been accused of rape, arrested for that offence and bailed. I knew the identity of that MP, and since my posting about it, the Times has since been 'brave' enough to name him.

From what I know, we are all supposed to be equal before the law with the same protected rights, and yet I see arguments that amount to some people seeming to believe that some are more equal than others.

So in my (non-legal) opinion that neither Mosley had committed an offence, and it also seems to me that as far was we know Edwards has not committed an offence. The two are similar in that because there are people who might feel these cases do not pass some yuck test, that the press are OK to publish, making it of interest to the public rather than in the public interest.

 

[Pale Rider]

Quoting the Mosley case is as irrelevant as quoting the McVities Jaffa Cake / Biscuit case would be

It is, but the Jaffa Cake case leaves a much nicer taste in the mouth.

But to give the old pervert his due, he had the guts to put his money where his mouth was.

 

[spen666]

I do.

I do.

I also recognise that he lost the pre-notification case at the ECtHR.

But he did win some of his cases on the grounds of privacy, which makes a point about there is some precedence concerning the balance of rights of the individual to privacy and the rights of the press to publish, and where the balance of the public and of interest to the public may lie. So I don't see it as irrelevant, or exactly the same, but similar enough to be of interest.

There is some merit in the argument that The Sun would know that putting the BBC in the position of needing to hold an investigation would lead to the suspension of the alleged perpetrator; and to that end it would be all but impossible to protect his identity.

I'll ask you to note that there were Conservative MPs already prepared to name Edwards in the house using parliamentary privilege, while all the time protecting the identity of one of their own whom has been accused of rape, arrested for that offence and bailed. I knew the identity of that MP, and since my posting about it, the Times has since been 'brave' enough to name him.

From what I know, we are all supposed to be equal before the law with the same protected rights, and yet I see arguments that amount to some people seeming to believe that some are more equal than others.

So in my (non-legal) opinion that neither Mosley had committed an offence, and it also seems to me that as far was we know Edwards has not committed an offence. The two are similar in that because there are people who might feel these cases do not pass some yuck test, that the press are OK to publish, making it of interest to the public rather than in the public interest.

Just because there is a mention of privacy in a case does not make it in the slightest bit relevant

 

[multitool]

Correct, because very few of you can hack anyone with a different view.

Actually I was referring to your posts. Chock full of insults. You should read them. You'll be horrified.

With regards to reactions to your posts, I'd be curious to know what you would deem acceptable. 100% acquiescence? It isn't going to happen, not least because a lot of what you post is, at best, rather anodyne, lacking depth and not underpinned with much in the way of intellectual rigour or depth. Its almost as if you've asked ChatGPT to construct every answer in the style of an average gammon, but with an extra helping of unmerited pomposity.

I notice that there is some previous between you and theclaud, but I take issue with you that her posts are "faux-intellectual bullshït". I suspect this means, simply, that you don't understand them, because bullshït they most certainly are not, and that she is able to communicate abstract concepts in a lucid manner is a testament to this.

 

[monkers]

Just because there is a mention of privacy in a case does not make it in the slightest bit relevant

I accept it doesn't to you, but it is of interest to me, and maybe to others, and I don't require your permission to post my thoughts.

 

[Salty seadog]

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.

You two should just get a room and work it out..... 🙄

 

[Pale Rider]

Actually I was referring to your posts. Chock full of insults. You should read them. You'll be horrified.

With regards to reactions to your posts, I'd be curious to know what you would deem acceptable. 100% acquiescence? It isn't going to happen, not least because a lot of what you post is, at best, rather anodyne, lacking depth and not underpinned with much in the way of intellectual rigour or depth. Its almost as if you've asked ChatGPT to construct every answer in the style of an average gammon, but with an extra helping of unmerited pomposity.

I notice that there is some previous between you and theclaud, but I take issue with you that her posts are "faux-intellectual bullshït". I suspect this means, simply, that you don't understand them, because bullshït they most certainly are not, and that she is able to communicate abstract concepts in a lucid manner is a testament to this.

Yet another post aimed purely at undermining me, which illustrates your true interest in this thread.

If someone has a pop, I might respond.

Plenty like to give it out, but come over all unnecessary if something comes back.

You also confuse 'depth' with the long winded drivel posted on here, but only when you agree with it.

Claud posted a nasty personal insult at me.

How did you think I might respond - with a delivery from Interflora?

 

[multitool]

Yet another post aimed purely at undermining me, which illustrates your true interest in this thread.

If someone has a pop, I might respond.

Plenty like to give it out, but come over all unnecessary if something comes back.

You also confuse 'depth' with the long winded drivel posted on here, but only when you agree with it.

Claud posted a nasty personal insult at me.

How did you think I might respond - with a delivery from Interflora?

You intervened in a discussion between be and somebody else, entirely unsolicited, and referred to me as "brainless".

And yet I am entirely polite to you. You might want to revisit your posting style lest the mote in your eye cause you further tears.

 

[albion]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/17/huge-sinkhole-closes-greater-manchester-street

Just needs a bit of yellow paint and it will be good for the next 18 months.

 

[Pale Rider]

And yet I am entirely polite to you.

Give over, you've posted any number of snipes and insults in my direction.

This linked one from yesterday took about 10 seconds to find, I can't be arsed to look for any others.

As I said, when a bit comes back you don't like it.

https://ncap.cyclechat.net/threads/this-just-in.192/page-27#post-67227

 

[multitool]

Give over, you've posted any number of snipes and insults in my direction.

This linked one from yesterday took about 10 seconds to find, I can't be arsed to look for any others.

As I said, when a bit comes back you don't like it.

https://ncap.cyclechat.net/threads/this-just-in.192/page-27#post-67227

What on earth are you talking about? I quoted somebody else's insult ("twatospheric arséhole"), on the grounds that it was very funny and very scathing. In the rest of the post, I either broadly agree with you, or seek for you to clarify.

Again, you need to revisit your own posting style before whining.

 

[theclaud]

Give over, you've posted any number of snipes and insults in my direction.

This linked one from yesterday took about 10 seconds to find, I can't be arsed to look for any others.

As I said, when a bit comes back you don't like it.

https://ncap.cyclechat.net/threads/this-just-in.192/page-27#post-67227

Have you thought about changing your Username to Twatospheric Arsehole? Got a certain kind of Ronseal appeal for someone who fancies himself as a plain speaker, I'd have thought.

 

[Pale Rider]

Have you thought about changing your Username to Twatospheric Arsehole? Got a certain kind of Ronseal appeal for someone who fancies himself as a plain speaker, I'd have thought.

Have you thought of changing your username to 'faux intellectual bullshitter'?

That definitely has a Ronseal appeal.

I'd have thought.

 

[theclaud]

Dan Wootton, anyone?

https://bylinetimes.com/2023/07/17/...in-cash-for-sexual-images-catfishing-scandal/