A judge rules the right of a woman to say who she slept with is more important than the man's right to privacy.
Looks like common sense to me, if you sleep with a lass, you can't complain if she tells someone.
Except if you are Premiership footballer Rio Ferdinand, when you can complain through the courts because you can afford to do so.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15114365
|
|
Prepare for a flood of Rooney stories...
|
>> Prepare for a flood of Rooney stories...
'I 'ad that Spud-Faced Nipper behind bus shelter the other day. He were lovely, grunting and snorting and spitting like that, but it were all over in seconds and he doesn't seem to remember me now.
'E weren't as lovely as that Dominique Strauss-Kahn though. Kept murmuring dirty words in me lug-ole in foreign*. All over in seconds. Real gentleman... etc. etc.'
* 'Laissez-moi tranquille, mademoiselle, je vous en prie. Je suis déjà en retard pour le sommet de Blackpool sur l'Euro...' Filth indeed.
|
"'Laissez-moi tranquille, mademoiselle, je vous en prie.'"
And he used "vous"? Wow - that's really kinky...
|
>> And he used "vous"? Wow - that's really kinky...
Perhaps so, but it is not unknown for old-fashioned upper-class or intellectual Frenchmen and women to address their spouses or lovers in the formal plural (Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir did for example, and I would bet my bottom dollar de Gaulle did). And in any case the DSK in my fantasy is asking an apparently importunate woman of lower social status to leave him alone as he is busy and running late. He would certainly address such a person formally in the plural, even while showing a certain impatience.
Bad taste, I know, to blame the lady as Mr Strauss-Kahn does have a pretty tasty reputation. These silly jokes run away with me sometimes.
|
>> A judge rules the right of a woman to say who she slept with is
>> more important than the man's right to privacy.
I don't think that's actually the case Iffy. The court found that the public interest was served by being informed that Rio's projection of himself as a reformed character was false. The fact of his being captain, the expectations of a captain as set out by Capello, the FA and others and his attempts to smuggle the girl into rooms in the team hotel were major factors.
The judge appears to agree with Rio's counsel Hugh Tomlinson that Ms Storey's rights under Articles 8 and 10 did not assist the Defendant.
It's a finding on the specific facts of this case not an open door to any knicker dropper with tale to tell.
Judgement published on balli www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/2454.html
|
>>And he used "vous"? Wow - that's really kinky... <<
Well, they might have been formally introduced.
Or he thought she had turned up to clean his bedroom.
|
If these highly paid bods are daft enough to sleep with those suspects likely to blab from the rooftops then more fool them, money never did buy sense or taste.
If it waddles and quacks, there's every chance it is a duck.
Remember a time when girls didn't want to be known as easy or slappers.
|
>> Remember a time when girls didn't want to be known as easy or slappers.
Oh here we go. more selective memory problems, country going to the dogs. Sometimes I wonder what planet you came from GB as the country you seem to remember never existed.
As it happens, No I don't remember when girls didn't want to be known as Slappers or easy. Its always been the case that a certain proportion of girls have been like that, long before you were born and long before you father.
And footballers have always been up for a drink and girls, at least for he last 50 years.
|
>> As it happens, No I don't remember when girls didn't want to be known as
>> Slappers or easy.
Glad i lived my life and not yours then, rumpy pumpy has always gone on and nothing wrong with it, never managed to hang around the sort of girls who wanted to sell their story to the papers though.
I'll stick with my memories, and the sort of proper women who don't broadcast their conquests for public titillation money.
Would you want to know some slapper who's previously been famous for 10 times a night with joe bloggs and all his team mates, some poor fellows are related to and might one day be married to these girls.
|
>> Would you want to know some slapper
known plenty in my time and a good time had by all
>> and might one day be married to these girls.
never married one tho. There are girls you have fun with and those you marry!
|
>> Remember a time when girls didn't want to be known as easy or slappers.
A few find the 'laddette' thing appeals. A few more find fulfillment of their insecurities from the easy attention of men and some find 'celebrity' appealing.
Most girls still don't want to be slappers though.
|
"Well, they might have been formally introduced.
Or he thought she had turned up to clean his bedroom."
Quite, but AC's scenario imagines they were having sex ("'E weren't as lovely as that Dominique Strauss-Kahn though. Kept murmuring dirty words in me lug-ole in foreign*. All over in seconds") and DSK was talking dirty during it.
It just seemed amusing that DSK used "vous". Or kinky.
Never mind.
|
>> DSK was talking dirty during it.
But talking a different kind of filth to what she imagined...
|
I agree the role model stuff was a big part, although the judge says:
"In my judgment the information in the article was in principle protected by Article 8."
Article eight says:
"(1) Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
"(2) There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and necessary in a democratic society or the economic well-being of the country. For the prevention of disorder and crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
To find in favour of the paper, the judge must have decided Ferdinand couldn't rely on article eight.
The exemption in clause two that might apply is 'protection of morals', which is a bit weak, so I still think 'protection of the rights and freedoms of others' will have come into it.
Fully agree the judgment is not an open door for kiss-and-tell stories.
The judge is not daft, that would prevent lawyers earning vast fees from future cases.
The judge is a lawyer, and all lawyers are good at finding work for other lawyers to do.
|
>> To find in favour of the paper, the judge must have decided Ferdinand couldn't rely
>> on article eight.
>>
>> The exemption in clause two that might apply is 'protection of morals', which is a
>> bit weak, so I still think 'protection of the rights and freedoms of others' will
>> have come into it.
That's not how it works.
The court examines the evidence and decides whether the information is in principle protected by Article 8. It then decides if Article 10, freedom of expression is also 'engaged'. If both are then the court conducts a 'balancing exercise' to decide which prevails.
Taking into account the factors in my previous post the judge decided that in this case 8 is trumped by 10.
There does seem to have been an attempt by the Mirror to say that the woman's article 8 rights include 'telling' or that article 10 might help her as well as the paper. The judge seems to accept Mr Tomlinson's argument that they do not.
|
...the judge decided that in this case 8 is trumped by 10...
Eight is the right to privacy, ten is freedom of expression.
So the judge decided, among other things, the girl's freedom of expression is more important than Ferdinand's right to privacy.
|
>> ...the judge decided that in this case 8 is trumped by 10...
>>
>> Eight is the right to privacy, ten is freedom of expression.
>>
>> So the judge decided, among other things, the girl's freedom of expression is more important
>> than Ferdinand's right to privacy.
The defendant was the newspaper and it was MGN's action in publishing that was being examined. The woman was not a party and only contributed a witness statement.
Para 104 of the judgement suggests MGN sought to rely on Ms Storey's rights under both 8&10 but the Judge agreed with Mr Tomlinson that 'they did not assist the defendant'.
|
So it's the "how many angels can dance on a pinhead?" type of judgement..
And lawyers, judges and the legal profession wonder why most people have a very low opinion of them...
Last edited by: madf on Fri 30 Sep 11 at 12:59
|
>> So it's the "how many angels can dance on a pinhead?" type of judgement..
>>
Not really. Its a consider the evidence > find the facts > review and apply the law > reach a considered conclusion type of a judgement.
How should it be done if the legal profession's ratings need to be improved.
|
...The defendant was the newspaper and it was MGN's action in publishing that was being examined. The woman was not a party and only contributed a witness statement...
True, but the two are closely linked because as you say the paper sought to rely on the girl's rights under eight and ten.
Para 105 of the judgment: 'Overall, in my judgment, the balancing exercise favours the Defendant's right of freedom of expression over the Claimant's right of privacy.'
Seems to me the paper's general freedom of expression, or right to publish, is an important factor in this case.
Although I take the point the information itself, and the context in which it was published, also played a big part.
|
I feel sorry for poor old Rio.
Himself and other footballers are only doing what the rest of us would willingly do if we had attractive girls throwing themselves at us every time we went out. If I were in that position a tabloid could keep itself going on my exploits alone.
|
...I feel sorry for poor old Rio...
He's a little poorer than he used to be, losing the case means he's responsible for his costs and that of the paper.
He's also not very bright, because all he's achieved is put a forgotten kiss-and-tell story back in the media's spotlight.
Lots of people wouldn't have seen the original story, but more will know of it now than they ever did.
Ferdinand should also have seen the double dose of publicity coming as it's happened so many time before.
|
Publish and not be damned - madf
