The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hello!

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann. Please note that your username should be different from your email address!

When posting please be mindful that this forum is primarily about the death of a three year old girl.

(Please note: if you register with the sole intention of disrupting or spamming, please don't expect to be a member for too long.)

Many thanks,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

'Press outrage over privacy law is both misconceived and misdirected'

View previous topic View next topic Go down

'Press outrage over privacy law is both misconceived and misdirected'

Post by sharonl on 14.09.10 7:34

'Press outrage over privacy law is both misconceived and misdirected'

SharePosted: 13/09/10 By: Rachel McAthy

.

Stevie Loughrey is a solicitor at law firm Carter-Ruck, which specialises in privacy, slander and defamation, as well as other areas of media, entertainment and international law.

The injunctions granted to Colin Montgomerie and three England footballers in recent weeks have been greeted with the now familiar wailing and gnashing of teeth by various sections of the media, venting their outrage at what they perceive to be the imposition of judge-made privacy law by stealth. They claim this is having a "chilling effect" on investigative journalism and the reporting of matters of public interest. There are a number of flaws with such arguments.

It is a truism that what interests the public does not necessarily engage the public interest. Newspapers’ desire to publish stories about the sexual exploits of sportsmen is prurient and is dictated by their own commercial interests. Is the sordid trade of salacious bedroom exposure really the basis upon which to found an argument about press rights? Be that as it may, it has not stopped some suggesting that the law as it now stands could have censored serious pieces of investigative journalism, for example by allowing MPs to block the Daily Telegraph's series on their expenses. It could not, because unlike the recent 'stories', the Daily Telegraph's genuinely involved the public interest.

Despite what many members of the media would have their readers believe, there have been but a handful of contested privacy actions since the House of Lords decision in Naomi Campbell in 2004. That is because there are so few stories where there is any hope of a public interest defence.


The suggestion that privacy law has been introduced through the backdoor by arrogant and unaccountable judges is also unsustainable. Leaving aside the fact that such ad hominem tactics contribute nothing whatsoever to the debate, the thesis itself is misconceived. It is not judge-made law. When dealing with competing Convention rights such as Article 8 (right to private life) and Article 10 (freedom of expression), the judiciary is giving effect to the Human Rights Act passed by Parliament. They consider whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, on the particular facts. If they decide there is, they carry out a balancing exercise to decide whether there is nonetheless an overriding public interest in according priority to someone else's freedom of speech.

It is difficult therefore to arrive at any conclusion other than that the recent press outrage is both misconceived and misdirected. The only "chilling effect" caused by the development of our privacy law is upon those who make their money from the "kiss and tell" business, and anyone reading the recent spate of articles on the exploits of Peter Crouch and Wayne Rooney could be forgiven for wondering whether it has even had much impact there.

http://www.journalism.co.uk/6/articles/540550.php

____________________
"WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER" - Rebekah Brooks to David Cameron
avatar
sharonl


Posts : 3889
Reputation : 635
Join date : 2009-12-29

http://www.cold2012.org.uk

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
McCanns apt & hire car


Blood and cadaver alerts
dismissed by UK Government


Retired DCI Gonçalo Amaral: "The English can always present the conclusions to which they themselves arrived in 2007. Because they know, they have the evidence of what happened - they don't need to investigate anything. All this is now a mere 'show off'."

Retired murder DCI Colin Sutton: "I would also like to make the point that Operation Grange was so restricted from the start as to be destined to fail."

Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley made public on national TV that Operation Grange is a complete fraud.

Ex-DCI Andy Redwood had a "revelation moment" on BBC's Crimewatch on 14th October 2013 when he announced that Operation Grange had eliminated the Tanner sighting - which opened up the 'window of opportunity', in accordance with their remit, to allow the fake abduction to happen.

Despite "irrelevant behaviour" from blood and cadaver dogs in the McCann's apartment, on Kate McCann's clothes, and in the car they hired three weeks after Maddie disappeared, Ex-Chief Inspector, Ian Horrocks, said: "The thought that Kate and Gerry McCann had anything to do with the death of their daughter is frankly preposterous."

Gerry McCann called for example to be made of 'trolls'. SKY News reporter Martin Brunt doorstepped Brenda Leyland on 2 October 2014. She was then found dead in a Leicester hotel room. Brenda paid the price. She paid with her life.

Ex-Deputy Chief Constable, Jim Gamble QPM, congratulated SKY reporter, Martin Brunt, on twitter for doorstepping Brenda Leyland on behalf of Gerry McCann.

Prime Minister Theresa May introduces Prime Suspect Kate McCann to Royalty: The Duchess of Gloucester.

Good Cop Down: The reality of being a police whistleblower
https://goodcopdown.wordpress.com/