This topic is now full - if you want to reply, please make a new post on the board itself.
This post is on the BDSM Activism web board.
| Fri 22 Jul 11, 5:11 PM boychick UK(SE), 7 yrs  |
I can think of lots of occasions, MPs personal expenses or the cosy relationship between cameron and rebecka wade being two recent major examples which could have been mired in legislation if mosley got his way we all know that some lawyers will play all kinds of tricks to drag out a case and bump up the costs, we all know some powerful people will go to any lengths to keep their own wrong doing from being exposed, could we really expect the rich and powerful to act responsibly were prior notification a legal requirement were mosley to succeed it could be the death knell for independent investigative journalism because the only people able to afford the court cases would be the tabloid press it would also no doubt end up being applied to forums, facebook etc, which would see a myriad of cases of he said/she said on their facebook profile which could lead to an end to sites like this, really say for example you said to another poster on here hey, you looked like you were having fun with at so and so, that post could fall foul of the law, if you hadnt pre-notified them you were going to make it - it sounds silly but when drafted laws you have to look at extremes like that, because all to often if you dont they end up in front of the courts thats why mosley's proposals are wrong and ill-thought out
well if this is also applied to people caught claiming benefits when they shouldnt or kids getting an asbo then perhaps he might have a point, but it doesnt, i fail to see why there should be one law for the rich and another for the poor
| |||||||||
| 22 Jul 11, 5:24 PM Attitude_Adjuster UK(N), 6 yrs  |
Not a private life issue/illegal.
the cosy relationship isn't an intimate one, she is part of his professional life. Why would a judge block reporting this?
no - we expect judges to act responsibly.
so they should stick to reporting things that there is a valid and obvious public interest factor.
hardly. and not possible, even if so.
Good. I would be particularly pissed off if someone did that to me.
There isn't. That's a paranoid assertion - see the if. Besides - reporting on individual benefits fraudsters is best left until after the court case, having reported the matter to the authorities, and then shutting the fuck up, so you don't impact the investigation and trial. Then AFTER a conviction, its on public record and you can report it to your hearts content. ETA: I'm not continuing the conversation, because frankly your argument is weak, and you go on and on. However it is nice to see that you've moved dramatically away from your original stance of 'mosely is a facist'.
And all men kill the thing they love, By all let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword! Edited 22 Jul 11, 5:28 PM by Attitude_Adjuster | |||||||||
| 22 Jul 11, 5:42 PM boychick UK(SE), 7 yrs |
you continually miss the point which is that people without the resources to fight a court case would no longer pursue investigative journalism so it would never get before a judge
that wasn't ever my original stance, i just pointed out that an odious former fascist is hardly my idea of a hero of BDSM rights perhaps i go on because you keep avoiding the point. and my argument is so weak that the highest court in europe (for once) agrees with it, whereas you and mosley are just like drunk bloke ranting in the pub about what should be done without thinking through any of the wider implications - which funnily enough is exactly what the tabloids do
| |||||||||
| 22 Jul 11, 5:46 PM Attitude_Adjuster UK(N), 6 yrs |
no not people - businesses.
And all men kill the thing they love, By all let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword! | |||||||||
| 22 Jul 11, 5:49 PM Fourfiveone UK, 7 yrs |
There's also the fact that the News of the World were seen to be repeatedly looking for public interest justifications after publication. Choosing to publish something because you think it'll sell papers or the subject of the story has had a falling out with another part of your organisation and then trying to cobble together a public interest defence after you're taken to court is totally contrary to the spirit of the law.
| |||||||||
| 22 Jul 11, 5:50 PM proccie UK(HP), 6 yrs  |
161 posts of which 70 are about Max Mosley. That's 43% of all your posts over 6 years. Obsessed or what?
Zen S&M: The sound of one hand slapping. | |||||||||
| 22 Jul 11, 5:54 PM boychick UK(SE), 7 yrs |
are freelance journalists businesses, or bloggers, or people who post on here, you're behind the times, arguing for a law for yesterday
| |||||||||
| 22 Jul 11, 5:55 PM boychick UK(SE), 7 yrs |
yes, i think freedom of the press important, i don't want to lose it
| |||||||||
| 22 Jul 11, 6:06 PM Perplexion 13 mths |
Quoted to illustrate that I am actually on topic with this question ...... anyone know where _x_Pan_x_ went?
| |||||||||
| 22 Jul 11, 6:09 PM boychick UK(SE), 7 yrs |
didnt get him very far though did it "The Commission was not convinced that the imposition of a legal requirement for prior notification is the right way forward and can see that this might have a chilling effect on investigative journalism."
| |||||||||
| 22 Jul 11, 6:10 PM proccie UK(HP), 6 yrs |
That's odd, what connection has Mr Mosley's teenage years activities have with his actions in the courts five decades later? I take it that you are for the right of journalists to hack phones? Zen S&M: The sound of one hand slapping. |
