On The Bridle
At the Start
Who?
Privacy and andrew Marr
- Thread starter clivex
- Start date
Who?
Has there ever been a more stupid legal action than that launched by this dim footballer against twitter?
His lawyers are clueless for a start but given the behaviour, i would seriously wonder about some of his previous claimns against the girl in question
What an arsehole
His lawyers are clueless for a start but given the behaviour, i would seriously wonder about some of his previous claimns against the girl in question
What an arsehole
imagine
At the Start
- Joined
- May 2, 2003
- Messages
- 685
Couldn't agree more.
Wouldn't you just now hold your hands up and say ''Yes, I've been an idiot, I'm sorry blah, blah'' rather than launch this stupid legal action. Whether it was actually meant or not's another matter. And if it wasn't the person who's been named surely you'd come out and deny it? Just drawing more attention to it this way. Idiot.
I love Pervert Eye and would normally champion the analogy, but it really isn't quite the same thing, is it? In Eye's case, all they wanted to do was to out Napier for professional wrongdoing. It would be entirely right and in the public interest that people know that the Law Society's top honcho had abused his position and flouted his own Society's rules.
In Giggs's case (and of all those past, present, and future sportsblokes who can't keep their flies zipped), apart from a prurient interest in the affairs of the rich and famous, the public doesn't have a right to know about such matters. If they're leaked, we know that the Press will gobble them up and spit 'em out for all to relish, but they are not in the public interest in the same way as knowing which MP took a backhander to run a road through an SSSI, or which heads of sporting bodies promised girls, hotels, and Caribe cruises to other countries' Mps in order to secure certain events.
I think that, broadly, it's got to be that if the issue could affect the rights, safety, security, integrity, or handling of the public, it's in their interest to know - to know how their taxes are spent, by whom, where and why; what's in their food and drink; how safe are their homes, cars, etc. Any persons who might compromise the welfare of the public in any way or who have used public office or their professional standing to gain illegally from those positions - yes, they should all be outed. It is in the public interest in those sort of cases. Fiddling about under the sheets with some bimbo? No - the public isn't affected by such actions.
In Giggs's case (and of all those past, present, and future sportsblokes who can't keep their flies zipped), apart from a prurient interest in the affairs of the rich and famous, the public doesn't have a right to know about such matters. If they're leaked, we know that the Press will gobble them up and spit 'em out for all to relish, but they are not in the public interest in the same way as knowing which MP took a backhander to run a road through an SSSI, or which heads of sporting bodies promised girls, hotels, and Caribe cruises to other countries' Mps in order to secure certain events.
I think that, broadly, it's got to be that if the issue could affect the rights, safety, security, integrity, or handling of the public, it's in their interest to know - to know how their taxes are spent, by whom, where and why; what's in their food and drink; how safe are their homes, cars, etc. Any persons who might compromise the welfare of the public in any way or who have used public office or their professional standing to gain illegally from those positions - yes, they should all be outed. It is in the public interest in those sort of cases. Fiddling about under the sheets with some bimbo? No - the public isn't affected by such actions.