This Just In!

[monkers]

Oh dear, getting upset at someone who has a different view to you.

II am interested in your opinions. I do not have to agree with someone.


Remember we all have the right to express our views as I seem to remember someone mentioning recently. So not I won't get lost

I just find you very tedious. You seem to have taken to stalking me. But you are not so bright as you may think.

You seem to think that I have misquoted the law with regards to The Sun's position. I have not alleged criminality. But that seems to be your mistake.

I have given an opinion that by and large hacks who work for the popular press are scum working in a scummy industry. That's an opinion that is not one related to law or legal opinion. I have no need to justify it in law, or to you.

I had mentioned that there needs to be a balance of what is 'the public interest' and 'what is of interest in the public'. I hadn't expressed any kind of legal opinion. I am not a lawyer, I do not offer legal advice. On occasions I directly quote what the law says, sometimes without the guidance of a lawyer, and sometimes with it. Quite frequently my sofa has a practising barrister on it next to me, and I am helped with some legal understanding if I ask for it. And of course she is available to me by phone or messager most times.

Just a moment ago, she tells me that you and Paley are 'talking out of your arses'. She quickly sent me a useful link.

It is not the case that journalists have special dispensation under the law ...

These guidelines set out the approach that prosecutors should take to such decisions where they affect the media and, in particular, how prosecutors should approach the question of whether a prosecution is required in the public interest. They are designed to give clear advice to prosecutors who have been asked either for a charging decision or for early advice to the police or other investigators in these sensitive and difficult cases. Adherence to these guidelines will ensure that there is consistency of approach across the CPS. However, they do not cover possible breaches of reporting restrictions or contempt of court, which are dealt with in other guidance and policy.

These guidelines are likely to be relevant when prosecutors are considering whether to charge journalists with criminal offences that may have been committed in the course of their work as journalists. They are also likely to be relevant when prosecutors are considering whether to charge others whose interaction with journalists may have involved the commission of a criminal offence.

It is important that prosecutors are aware that neither journalists nor those who interact with them are afforded special status under the criminal law. The Code for Crown Prosecutors which is issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions and which governs CPS decision-making applies to journalists and those who interact with them in the same way as it applies to everyone else.

My contact also says that no person is yet in a position to make any meaningful comment on any alleged criminal activity either by Edwards, Wooton, or The Sun, but people are free to discuss it without hindrance or let of those who claim to be lawyers on social media.

So unless you are in a position to follow up some allegation that I have made about The Sun being guilty of criminal activity, my contact says the best strategy is just to tell you 'fark off somewhere else, and when you get there fark off some more'.

 

[Bromptonaut]

It most certainly does, but it also makes it easier to join them up wrongly.

How many named Jeremy Vine, Rylan Clarke and others by joining up the dots

There were hints on forums - Mumsnet ?? - about a Welshman in pretty short order after the Sun published.

 

[multitool]

It most certainly does, but it also makes it easier to join them up wrongly.

How many named Jeremy Vine, Rylan Clarke and others by joining up the dots

Certainly, but it's remarkable that the predominant name was Edwards.

The Sun knew it was Edwards. If nobody had named him the story would have withered on the vine. It was in the interest of the Sun for Edwards to be named, whether by their hand or not.

 

[Pale Rider]

Aside from socks there's other stuff including facilitating jigsaw identification.

The press have long posted something about alleged misdeeds, usually of a sexual nature, by an unnamed star of stage, studio or sport. The juxtaposed another, apparently unconnected article about the person concerned. Then there's a string of articles all with a wee bit of info which, particularly to aficionados of footie or whatever, give all the clues needed.

All this pre-supposes the press is desperate to name the individual, which they are not otherwise they would take the risk and do it.

I've never seen strings of 'jigsaw' stories as a conspiracy to all but name an individual, but I don't follow any of those closely enough to know it hasn't happened.

By the way, you are misusing the term 'jigsaw identification', which the press is warned against and can happen when there is an existing legal restriction on naming someone.

It occurs when two separate publications take a different, but entirely legal and ethical, stance to a story, but a reader of both stories could work out who the subject is.

A typical example might be a case of incest in which the victims are protected.

One paper might say 'David Smith 52, of Acacia Avenue has been jailed for a serious sexual offence'.

Another might say 'A 52-year-old father has been jailed for having sex with his daughter'.

Both stories are legal and ethical, but taken together could identify the victims.

The press are supposed to get together beforehand to prevent this happening.

 

[monkers]

All this pre-supposes the press is desperate to name the individual, which they are not otherwise they would take the risk and do it.

I've never seen strings of 'jigsaw' stories as a conspiracy to all but name an individual, but I don't follow any of those closely enough to know it hasn't happened.

By the way, you are misusing the term 'jigsaw identification', which the press is warned against and can happen when there is an existing legal restriction on naming someone.

It occurs when two separate publications take a different, but entirely legal and ethical, stance to a story, but a reader of both stories could work out who the subject is.

A typical example might be a case of incest in which the victims are protected.

One paper might say 'David Smith 52, of Acacia Avenue has been jailed for a serious sexual offence'.

Another might say 'A 52-year-old father has been jailed for having sex with his daughter'.

Both stories are legal and ethical, but taken together could identify the victims.

The press are supposed to get together beforehand to prevent this happening.

See Craig Murray in the Scottish Courts. Murray was imprisoned for jigsaw identification. His version of the events make for interesting reading.

https://rsf.org/en/uk-blogger-craig-murray-jailed-eight-months-over-jigsaw-identification#:~:text=Judge Lady Dorrian found that,to eight months in prison.

I'll add other links as I find them.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2021/01/my-trial-and-freedom-of-speech/

 

[Bromptonaut]

All this pre-supposes the press is desperate to name the individual, which they are not otherwise they would take the risk and do it.

I've never seen strings of 'jigsaw' stories as a conspiracy to all but name an individual, but I don't follow any of those closely enough to know it hasn't happened.

By the way, you are misusing the term 'jigsaw identification', which the press is warned against and can happen when there is an existing legal restriction on naming someone.

It occurs when two separate publications take a different, but entirely legal and ethical, stance to a story, but a reader of both stories could work out who the subject is.

A typical example might be a case of incest in which the victims are protected.

One paper might say 'David Smith 52, of Acacia Avenue has been jailed for a serious sexual offence'.

Another might say 'A 52-year-old father has been jailed for having sex with his daughter'.

Both stories are legal and ethical, but taken together could identify the victims.

The press are supposed to get together beforehand to prevent this happening.

More types of jigsaw than you think.

It's an issue for some of us with Staff Surveys.

 

[icowden]

FWIW Dead Ringers have really been quite near the knuckle this week with some great jabs at Murdoch and also at the BBC trying to eat itself.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001npg1

 

[Pale Rider]

Just a moment ago, she tells me that you and Paley are 'talking out of your arses'. She quickly sent me a useful link.

It is not the case that journalists have special dispensation under the law ...

Your clever lawyer clearly knows very little about media law, and even less about how newspapers work.

Was she the same one who put you onto the Whistleblowers' Act, which you triumphantly referenced on here,

You remember, the one that only applies to whistleblowers.

Of course journalists are subject to the same laws as everybody else, but like everybody else, practically they are only subject to the laws which are relevant to their activities at a given time.

,

 

[matticus]

FWIW Dead Ringers have really been quite near the knuckle this week with some great jabs at Murdoch and also at the BBC trying to eat itself.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001npg1

Good for them! In the early days that was a harmless but very funny self-parody of the Beeb; it got really dull recently.

 

[newfhouse]

All this pre-supposes the press is desperate to name the individual, which they are not otherwise they would take the risk and do it.

I’m sure they were happy for there to be a period of speculation that encompassed, among others, Gary Lineker.

 

[monkers]

Was she the same one who put you onto the Whistleblowers' Act, which you triumphantly referenced on here,

You remember, the one that only applies to whistleblowers.

No she wasn't. I had already said that I acknowledge what that law relates to - not an exact fit. There was nothing written by me that amounted to any triumphalism - but I note you can not turn off that tendency to invent or exaggerate. What the need to keep saying the same thing over and over. I understand that you don't like what I say about the scum press, but making stuff up doesn't enhance your look.

My contact says it is you making a false claim that the press have some special dispensation or exemption from criminal law, and that it something that some people from the press love to say - but it has no basis in law as far as the CPS are concerned. The law applies as equally to journalists as to other individuals. BTW she does not have in mind such things as protection of sources, they are clearly different issues.

Anyway, I tried to be helpful to you about jigsaw identification. Again I am not a lawyer, but there are links posted if the topic is of interest to you.

 

[Pale Rider]

My contact says it is you making a false claim that the press have some special dispensation or exemption from criminal law,

I have never said that, so the rest of your post is the usual falsely constructed cobblers.

Anyway, I tried to be helpful to you about jigsaw identification

No you haven't.

The case of that loony Scots independence bloke involved a judge taking his various posts as a whole, which is fair enough, and ruling they amounted to a contempt.

Here at the coalface, you cannot jigsaw yourself, and such an identification would have to be accidental and involve a second media organisation.

The Scots loony failed on both parts, he was acting alone and was ruled to be deliberately trying to hint at protected identities.

 

[multitool]

All this pre-supposes the press is desperate to name the individual, which they are not otherwise they would take the risk and do it.

There are several reasons why they may have chosen not to name Edwards:

1) They aren't 100% confident of their case, and fear legal repercussions. They know proxies will name Edwards for them at no risk to them.

2) Not naming Edwards prolongs the story but also provokes interest in the story. I had several WhatsApp from groups posing the question "Who do you think it is?".

It became a national game of whodunit.

3) The Caroline Flack factor. They avoid any repercussions against them if the story results in tragedy.

All of these things will have occurred to the editor of The Sun.

 

[monkers]

I have never said that, so the rest of your post is the usual falsely constructed cobblers.



No you haven't.

The case of that loony Scots independence bloke involved a judge taking his various posts as a whole, which is fair enough, and ruling they amounted to a contempt.

Here at the coalface, you cannot jigsaw yourself, and such an identification would have to be accidental and involve a second media organisation.

The Scots loony failed on both parts, he was acting alone and was ruled to be deliberately trying to hint at protected identities.

Ye Gods, you are still an arse'ole when folk try to be reasonable to you. I can clearly see why so many folk have taken a dislike to you.

Let's stop bothering each other shall we, it's never going to be pleasant.

 

[Pale Rider]

Ye Gods, you are still an arse'ole when folk try to be reasonable to you. I can clearly see why so many folk have taken a dislike to you.

Let's stop bothering each other shall we, it's never going to be pleasant.

I made a reasonable response to your post, but now you choose to spit the dummy.

Calling me names - again - just because I disagree with you - again - is contemptible.

Stop making bold assertions about things of which you know nothing and the job will run more smoothly.