Nothing matters anyway
-
- Posts: 10330
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
- Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Re: Nothing matters anyway
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
"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
-
- Posts: 3732
- Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
- Location: Hayes (Middx)
Re: Nothing matters anyway
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.Roger de Coverly wrote: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.Paul McKeown wrote:The technical means of barring access to IP addresses originating under English jurisdiction exists, why was it not applied?
Gordon Bennett, get off your high horse, it's only a rocking chair.
-
- Posts: 3732
- Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
- Location: Hayes (Middx)
Re: Nothing matters anyway
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?Jonathan Bryant wrote:From the judge who acknowledged that Giggs hadn't used the term "blackmail".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
That's reasonable enough, but if no prosecution follows - or is even attempted - why this talk of "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
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.
-
- Posts: 9085
- Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
- Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Re: Nothing matters anyway
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: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.Alex Holowczak wrote:the Internet is unmoderated
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.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?
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.
-
- Posts: 9085
- Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
- Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Re: Nothing matters anyway
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?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.
-
- Posts: 3452
- Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 3:54 pm
Re: Nothing matters anyway
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.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?
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.
Well as you say, that's your opinion. My own mind is unmade up on the question.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.
The Abysmal Depths of Chess: https://theabysmaldepthsofchess.blogspot.com
-
- Posts: 21301
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: Nothing matters anyway
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"?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.
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.
-
- Posts: 3732
- Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
- Location: Hayes (Middx)
Re: Nothing matters anyway
Yes?Alex Holowczak wrote:Have you ever heard of torrents?
Free is not correctly synonymous for stolen.Alex Holowczak wrote:You can get all sorts of things on there; free music, free Windows software, free movies.
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:The vast majority of people download free (and illegal) music
True, indeed one cannot.Alex Holowczak wrote:you can't jail all of them.
You parade your lack of awareness.Alex Holowczak wrote:As far as I'm aware, everyone who does so gets away with it.
Generally only by court order, they have no right otherwise to investigate what people download.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).
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:The courts were thwarted because they were expected to police a law that doesn't work.
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:Virtually everyone knew it was Ryan Giggs long before the Sunday Herald published it.
True.Alex Holowczak wrote:Twitter is an American company
... with the exception of pronouncing it in territories under English jurisdiction.Alex Holowczak wrote:, so under the First Amendment, it was legal for them to announce Giggs' name.
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: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's editors spent a great deal of effort removing such references.Alex Holowczak wrote:Wikipedia, for example.
See my reply to Roger de Coverley's similar junk.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.
Generally speaking this matter has no relevance to holding authority to account, so comparisons with China are ridiculous.
-
- Posts: 9085
- Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
- Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Re: Nothing matters anyway
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:Wikipedia's editors spent a great deal of effort removing such references.Alex Holowczak wrote:Wikipedia, for example.
"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:... with the exception of pronouncing it in territories under English jurisdiction.Alex Holowczak wrote:, so under the First Amendment, it was legal for them to announce Giggs' name.
I shall note this when reading your posts in future.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.
-
- Posts: 3452
- Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 3:54 pm
Re: Nothing matters anyway
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
http://www.independent.co.uk/i/editor/l ... 88102.html
The Abysmal Depths of Chess: https://theabysmaldepthsofchess.blogspot.com
-
- Posts: 21301
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: Nothing matters anyway
On the contrary, both are about those in positions of power and influence seeking to maintain their reputations and privileges.Paul McKeown wrote: Generally speaking this matter has no relevance to holding authority to account, so comparisons with China are ridiculous.
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.
-
- Posts: 10330
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
- Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Re: Nothing matters anyway
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)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.
Any postings on here represent my personal views
-
- Posts: 662
- Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 4:10 pm
- Location: Abingdon
Re: Nothing matters anyway
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
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13516796
-
- Posts: 5821
- Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm
Re: Nothing matters anyway
"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...
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
-
- Posts: 1071
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 3:16 pm
- Location: Sutton Coldfield
Re: Nothing matters anyway
Should be OK if the organisers are prepared for adjournments, although playing conditions in Hell might be a little uncomfortable.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...
Ian Kingston
http://www.iankingston.com
http://www.iankingston.com