This Just In!

[monkers]

Dan Wootton, anyone?

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

There's a number of interconnected stories, which may end up revealing some bigger picture, or not. I don't know, but people are getting suspicious that there may be some behind-the-scenes political grubbiness going on.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...XJe3QA8Bi_aVjU65W7cQPejAmvj8TwLgnY7f4teMpnkRc

 

[theclaud]

There's a number of interconnected stories, which may end up revealing some bigger picture, or not. I don't know, but people are getting suspicious that there may be some behind-the-scenes political grubbiness going on.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...XJe3QA8Bi_aVjU65W7cQPejAmvj8TwLgnY7f4teMpnkRc

Political grubbiness! Involving GBNews and Tories?!

😲

 

[monkers]

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

That definitely has a Ronseal appeal.

I'd have thought.

Maybe change your name to Ron Seal - when smeared onto posts leaves a dark stain. Seems to work well enough- you might consider it.

 

[matticus]

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

It seems very relevant. In both cases the papers published details of an individual's private life to sell papers, and thought they'd get away with it (in the sense they wouldn't get sued to bankruptcy, even in the worse case).

Other details are entirely moot - it appears you and PaleRider will take one view, many will take broadly the same view as Liverpudlians.

 

[newfhouse]

many will take broadly the same view as Liverpudlians.

Superman is a Scouser.

 

[spen666]

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.

Ahh yes, the old tactic of playing the I have the right to say something - to avoid the fact you are completely wrong in trying to link the Mosley case on privacy with the Edwards case.

No one is denying your right to make yourself look stupid. However, remember that others have the right to expose your posts as nonsense also


Have a nice day now and remember....

 

[spen666]

It seems very relevant. In both cases the papers published details of an individual's private life to sell papers, and thought they'd get away with it (in the sense they wouldn't get sued to bankruptcy, even in the worse case).

Other details are entirely moot - it appears you and PaleRider will take one view, many will take broadly the same view as Liverpudlians.

The fact that in Mosley's case he was named is a rather different factor to that in Edwards case where until he or his family outed him, he was not named makes a huge difference. The papers did not name Edwards


The views of Liverpudlians is not a legal test I am afraid. They do not hold some special legal standing to decide what is or is not in the public interest or what is or is not a breach of someone's privacy.

You are letting your dislike of a newspaper (group?) stop you considering fairly the legal issues

 

[qigong chimp]

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.

I’m flattered, but think “honking shit-funnel” edges it.

 

[Bromptonaut]

The papers did not name Edwards

Not sure that defence runs as far as our Press Barons would like it to...

 

[matticus]

The views of Liverpudlians is not a legal test I am afraid. They do not hold some special legal standing to decide what is or is not in the public interest

Well that's a shock! To be honest though, it's starting to look like a better test than anything you or PaleRider have come up with (remind me, what IS the test that you two support? I have such a poor memory, I'm sure you would have explained it at some point ... )

You are letting your dislike of a newspaper (group?) stop you considering fairly the legal issues

Here's a tip for YOU; none of us here are court officials, or indeed have any powers in this matter. These are all just opinions.
HTH x

 

[Pale Rider]

There's a number of interconnected stories, which may end up revealing some bigger picture, or not. I don't know, but people are getting suspicious that there may be some behind-the-scenes political grubbiness going on.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...XJe3QA8Bi_aVjU65W7cQPejAmvj8TwLgnY7f4teMpnkRc

Good news for Wotton, as an attendee he will have been able to harvest lots more names for his dodgy messages.

Well that's a shock! To be honest though, it's starting to look like a better test than anything you or PaleRider have come up with (remind me, what IS the test that you two support? I have such a poor memory, I'm sure you would have explained it at some point ... )

Do you think it was in the public interest for Byline Times to name Wotton in the er, interesting story helpfully linked by Claud?

Bear in mind The Sun or any media didn't name Edwards until after he 'fessed up.

Not sure that defence runs as far as our Press Barons would like it to...

You cannot libel an individual or invade their privacy if the individual does not have a name.

As correctly observed by Kelvin Mackenzie, in the good old days the papers would have done the naming, as they did with the smelly old pervert Moseley.

Thanks in particular to the fallout from the Cliff Richard case more caution is now required.

 

[winjim]

Are the old newspapers really so ignorant as to the workings of social media in the 21st century?

 

[monkers]

Ahh yes, the old tactic of playing the I have the right to say something - to avoid the fact you are completely wrong in trying to link the Mosley case on privacy with the Edwards case.

No one is denying your right to make yourself look stupid. However, remember that others have the right to expose your posts as nonsense also


Have a nice day now and remember....

I didn't try to 'link'it. Please stop making stuff up - you really should know better, and joining with others that do, just isn't a good look.

I think that is of interest because it was another high profile case of press intrusion into private lives. And despite your Pale Rider style bluster and bullshit, I'm sticking with that view.

 

[matticus]

Do you think it was in the public interest for Byline Times to name Wotton in the er, interesting story helpfully linked by Claud?

Ah - so your test of public interest is "Was Claud the source?" This surprises me, I must admit.

 

[Pale Rider]

Are the old newspapers really so ignorant as to the workings of social media in the 21st century?

No doubt you are trying to make an anti-newspaper point, but the short answer is 'yes'.

In 30+ years I've seen all manner of resistance, including strikes, to the introduction of new technologies which were obviously going to revolutionise publishing.

Journalists generally were technological Luddites, so any change had to be forced.

That is changing now, but there are plenty of people who are still well ahead of the mainstream media when it come to social media and online publishing.

I suspect that's due to the difficulty of making any money from it - most attempts at charging a subscription have failed miserably.

The ingrained notion that all stuff on the internet is 'free' is proving a hard one to get over.

Ah - so your test of public interest is "Was Claud the source?" This surprises me, I must admit.

WTF are you on about?

I was merely giving Claud the credit for bringing to my attention a good story that I might not have otherwise spotted - depending on whether other media follows it.

The question remains, should Wootton have been named by Byline Times?