Nothing matters anyway

A section to discuss matters not related to Chess in particular.
Mick Norris
Posts: 10330
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester

Re: Nothing matters anyway

Post by Mick Norris » Tue May 24, 2011 10:46 am

I think for the sake of balance we should note that:

"The model later said she was "outraged" at being accused of trying to blackmail the footballer."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-13503444
Any postings on here represent my personal views

Paul McKeown
Posts: 3732
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hayes (Middx)

Re: Nothing matters anyway

Post by Paul McKeown » Tue May 24, 2011 10:51 am

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Paul McKeown wrote:The technical means of barring access to IP addresses originating under English jurisdiction exists, why was it not applied?
I would imagine that the Courts felt that a method used by authoritarian leaders to silence opinion critical to their regime was not appropriate when applied to the affairs of a Manchester United footballer. Politicians in Britain like to claim that we live in a free society. Blocking half of Twitter isn't consistent with that claim.
Roger, get real, will you. That is drivel. IP barring is used by the BBC, for example, to ensure that copyright restrictions are adhered to. If you can't present an IP address originating from British jurisdiction, you can't get iPlayer. If you do present an IP address originating from British jurisdiction, you can't view certain materials intended for overseas use only.

Gordon Bennett, get off your high horse, it's only a rocking chair.

Paul McKeown
Posts: 3732
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hayes (Middx)

Re: Nothing matters anyway

Post by Paul McKeown » Tue May 24, 2011 10:55 am

Jonathan Bryant wrote:
Paul McKeown wrote: a) I'm not sure where you get this idea that Giggs made no such claim: it wasn't a figment of the judge's imagination
From the judge who acknowledged that Giggs hadn't used the term "blackmail".
Paul McKeown wrote:b) dealing with blackmail after the damage has been done is less useful than dealing with blackmail before damage has been done
c) an injunction is a tool used to prevent an (alleged) blackmailer from executing his or her threat
That's reasonable enough, but if no prosecution follows - or is even attempted - why this talk of "blackmail"?
The amounts involved and the occasions on which they were demanded are stated freely. Did the judge simply invent them, or, more plausibly, were they presented in evidence?

Anyway, the principle remains, in my opinion. Just because she had intimate relations with him, doesn't give her the right to make money from telling the whole world about it, if he wishes it to remain private.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire

Re: Nothing matters anyway

Post by Alex Holowczak » Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am

Paul McKeown wrote:
Alex Holowczak wrote:the Internet is unmoderated
The Internet is subject to the law in the same way as all other forms of publication. There may be technical difficulties, but the same principles apply. Try to distribute copyright materials for profit without permission of the owner - you will get away with it for a while, perhaps even years, but eventually you will summoned before the courts. Try selling contraband, counterfeit or stolen goods on eBay - again you may get away with it for a while, but eventually you will have your collar felt. Try publishing pornography which involves those who have not given their consent or those who cannot give informed consent: you will eventually be sentenced to time spent at Her Majesty's pleasure and will be placed on the s*x Offenders register. Try publishing a libel on the Internet; before long the owners of the site will take it down, either as part of their own moderation process, or under threat of litigation, or, ultimately by order of a court. You may find yourself liable to pay damages, too.
Have you ever heard of torrents? You can get all sorts of things on there; free music, free Windows software, free movies. The vast majority of people download free (and illegal) music, and you can't jail all of them. As far as I'm aware, everyone who does so gets away with it. Even the people providing the broadband connection don't do anything about it, when they have the power to do so (by cutting the connection).
Paul McKeown wrote:Twitter will remain extra-territorial, but heaven help its owners, should they step onto soil under English jurisdiction. The Court's do not appreciate being thwarted and they will demand an answer to the question as to why information that the High Court required to be kept private under Engish jurisdiction was made public to those living under English jurisdiction. The technical means of barring access to IP addresses originating under English jurisdiction exists, why was it not applied?
The courts were thwarted because they were expected to police a law that doesn't work. Virtually everyone knew it was Ryan Giggs long before the Sunday Herald published it. Twitter is an American company, so under the First Amendment, it was legal for them to announce Giggs' name. Just like all the Spanish, US and Irish newspapers, who posted their articles online.

Good luck trying to block everything on the Internet that published Giggs' name in this case. It wasn't just on Twitter, but on thousands of other places if you could be bothered to search for them. Wikipedia, for example. The text would be recreated in too many places. Once information is on the Internet, people who want to know anything can find out about it.

The only way you can censor the Internet is to block the sites for everyone, which is something China does. That would be a horribly retrograde step.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire

Re: Nothing matters anyway

Post by Alex Holowczak » Tue May 24, 2011 11:00 am

Paul McKeown wrote: Roger, get real, will you. That is drivel. IP barring is used by the BBC, for example, to ensure that copyright restrictions are adhered to. If you can't present an IP address originating from British jurisdiction, you can't get iPlayer. If you do present an IP address originating from British jurisdiction, you can't view certain materials intended for overseas use only.
I guess this is part of the problem - if the Sunday Herald was right, then it wasn't a British problem. It was an English problem. Do IP addresses get subdivided into Britain's constituent countries?

Jonathan Bryant
Posts: 3452
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: Nothing matters anyway

Post by Jonathan Bryant » Tue May 24, 2011 11:06 am

Paul McKeown wrote: The amounts involved and the occasions on which they were demanded are stated freely. Did the judge simply invent them, or, more plausibly, were they presented in evidence?
No the amounts - claimed by Giggs, denied by Thomas - were stated. It is the conclusion that this amounted to "blackmail" that was created by the judge.

The question is, if Giggs had believed he was being blackmailed - the legal term, as opposed to being asked for money - he could have gone to the police. In that circumstance I would agree that it would be entirely appropriate for the matter not to be published. But he didn't. He didn't even say in court that he believed he was being blackmailed.

You may think that he *was* being asked for money - it's hardly beyond the bounds of possibility to put it mildly - and that *does* amount to blackmail, but your opinion (nor mine) doesn't really matter does it? If you're saying something criminal is going on you have to prove it in a criminal court. Until that point, legally, nothing criminal is going on.

The fact that Thomas says she is 'outraged' at the claim of blackmail - and indeed the interview with Max Clifford in the Telegraph today saying that the affair only became public because Giggs sought the injunction, that Thomas never intended to speak to the press about it - I think we might very well file under "they would say that, wouldn't they?". Even so, it remains my belief it was the judge deciding for himself that this was a case of of blackmail that was the beginning of the end for Giggs.

Paul McKeown wrote: Anyway, the principle remains, in my opinion. Just because she had intimate relations with him, doesn't give her the right to make money from telling the whole world about it, if he wishes it to remain private.
Well as you say, that's your opinion. My own mind is unmade up on the question.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Nothing matters anyway

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue May 24, 2011 11:15 am

Paul McKeown wrote: IP barring is used by the BBC, for example, to ensure that copyright restrictions are adhered to. If you can't present an IP address originating from British jurisdiction, you can't get iPlayer. If you do present an IP address originating from British jurisdiction, you can't view certain materials intended for overseas use only.
That's a restriction imposed by the BBC to prevent non-UK people accessing material for free that's been financed by British licence payers. The BBC, you would hope, would feel extremely uneasy about restricting news coverage in a similar manner. I think what you were suggesting was not the BBC iPlayer model, but restrictions imposed on UK ISPs on what external IP addresses could be accessed. Isn't this the method used by what's sometimes called "The Great Firewall of China"?

I don't think you could persuade an American company to block gossip from being circulated in the UK, even if a footballer's lawyers thought it was worth trying. In any case once you block mention of X, it can become obvious who X is.

None of this is particularly new. There were a few cases in the Seventies where books or articles were said to breach the Official Secrets Act. When the authors were asked what material it was, so it could be removed, they were told that this was also secret.

Paul McKeown
Posts: 3732
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hayes (Middx)

Re: Nothing matters anyway

Post by Paul McKeown » Tue May 24, 2011 11:16 am

Alex Holowczak wrote:Have you ever heard of torrents?
Yes?
Alex Holowczak wrote:You can get all sorts of things on there; free music, free Windows software, free movies.
Free is not correctly synonymous for stolen.
Alex Holowczak wrote:The vast majority of people download free (and illegal) music
You might, for all I know and care, but I doubt your statistics. [There is incidentally a whole other argument to be had as to whether current statute dealing with electronically published media adequately provide for fair use.]
Alex Holowczak wrote:you can't jail all of them.
True, indeed one cannot.
Alex Holowczak wrote:As far as I'm aware, everyone who does so gets away with it.
You parade your lack of awareness.
Alex Holowczak wrote:Even the people providing the broadband connection don't do anything about it, when they have the power to do so (by cutting the connection).
Generally only by court order, they have no right otherwise to investigate what people download.
Alex Holowczak wrote:The courts were thwarted because they were expected to police a law that doesn't work.
Actually it does work, there are many privacy injunctions in force, very few of which are ever broken. I named just one example, that of Maxine Carr. You should do your research.
Alex Holowczak wrote:Virtually everyone knew it was Ryan Giggs long before the Sunday Herald published it.
For "knew", substitute "had heard". But no detail was no known, still is not known and the injunction remains in place, so Imogen Thomas will remain barred from peddling her wares.
Alex Holowczak wrote:Twitter is an American company
True.
Alex Holowczak wrote:, so under the First Amendment, it was legal for them to announce Giggs' name.
... with the exception of pronouncing it in territories under English jurisdiction.
Alex Holowczak wrote:Good luck trying to block everything on the Internet that published Giggs' name in this case. It wasn't just on Twitter, but on thousands of other places if you could be bothered to search for them.
The Internet is a seething cauldron of boiling bull**it. No rational person gives much credence to vast amounts of such junk. Personal information published in the print media has a much more damaging personal effect.
Alex Holowczak wrote:Wikipedia, for example.
Wikipedia's editors spent a great deal of effort removing such references.
Alex Holowczak wrote:The only way you can censor the Internet is to block the sites for everyone, which is something China does. That would be a horribly retrograde step.
See my reply to Roger de Coverley's similar junk.

Generally speaking this matter has no relevance to holding authority to account, so comparisons with China are ridiculous.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire

Re: Nothing matters anyway

Post by Alex Holowczak » Tue May 24, 2011 11:57 am

Paul McKeown wrote:
Alex Holowczak wrote:Wikipedia, for example.
Wikipedia's editors spent a great deal of effort removing such references.
Only true while they found verifiable sources. Indeed, by 21:26 on 22nd May (Sunday), they had done so. This was 18 hours before Hemming came along and said his name under Parliamentary Privilege.
Paul McKeown wrote:
Alex Holowczak wrote:, so under the First Amendment, it was legal for them to announce Giggs' name.
... with the exception of pronouncing it in territories under English jurisdiction.
"territories" being the relevant word? How is this defined in the context of the Internet? Otherwise, by the same arguments, we could put something on the Internet about Tiananmen Square, but be in breach of Chinese rules. The Chinese block all references to it online themselves, rather than rely on the companies from around the world censoring it on their behalf.
Paul McKeown wrote:The Internet is a seething cauldron of boiling bull**it. No rational person gives much credence to vast amounts of such junk.
I shall note this when reading your posts in future. :wink:

Jonathan Bryant
Posts: 3452
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: Nothing matters anyway

Post by Jonathan Bryant » Tue May 24, 2011 12:11 pm

Out of so much that's floating around the news websites, this struck me as particularly worthy of attention

http://www.independent.co.uk/i/editor/l ... 88102.html

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Nothing matters anyway

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue May 24, 2011 12:57 pm

Paul McKeown wrote: Generally speaking this matter has no relevance to holding authority to account, so comparisons with China are ridiculous.
On the contrary, both are about those in positions of power and influence seeking to maintain their reputations and privileges.

In the affair of the banker, it may well be relevant that the other party was also a senior member of the bank's management. If part of risk management is that a robust internal debate should take place, it isn't helpful when critics of the CEO can potentially be silenced by related parties.

Mick Norris
Posts: 10330
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester

Re: Nothing matters anyway

Post by Mick Norris » Tue May 24, 2011 1:45 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:In the affair of the banker, it may well be relevant that the other party was also a senior member of the bank's management. If part of risk management is that a robust internal debate should take place, it isn't helpful when critics of the CEO can potentially be silenced by related parties.
It is vital that the Financial Services Authority (and the bodies that will replace it) know what is going on - those of us with the misfortune to be regulated by the FSA are bound to be fair, open and honest with our regulator (which itself appears to be above the law) and are very irritated with their failure to apply the same standard to the banks (who account for the vast majority of complaints)
Any postings on here represent my personal views

Phil Neatherway
Posts: 662
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 4:10 pm
Location: Abingdon

Re: Nothing matters anyway

Post by Phil Neatherway » Tue May 24, 2011 4:12 pm

Returning to the original theme of this thread, I urge you all to spend your last few months on earth wisely:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13516796

Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 5821
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: Nothing matters anyway

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Wed May 25, 2011 8:13 am

"Returning to the original theme of this thread, I urge you all to spend your last few months on earth wisely:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13516796"

That's going to foul up Round 5 of the Guernsey Tournament...
"Kevin was the arbiter and was very patient. " Nick Grey

Ian Kingston
Posts: 1071
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 3:16 pm
Location: Sutton Coldfield

Re: Nothing matters anyway

Post by Ian Kingston » Wed May 25, 2011 8:59 am

Kevin Thurlow wrote:"Returning to the original theme of this thread, I urge you all to spend your last few months on earth wisely:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13516796"

That's going to foul up Round 5 of the Guernsey Tournament...
Should be OK if the organisers are prepared for adjournments, although playing conditions in Hell might be a little uncomfortable.