Forum menu
It is not just the exposing, the headline of "Are these the morons that ruined Christmas" next to an A4 sized photo of them is not very helpful. How does the Daily Mail even still exist.
I will be very surprised if any media outlet pays the two arrested people a significant amount of money.
Until directed by the courts.
Fify there.
It is not just the exposing, the headline of “Are these the morons that ruined Christmas” next to an A4 sized photo of them is not very helpful. How does the Daily Mail even still exist.
What irks me is the retraction they will be forced to print which will on bottom of page 2 really small.
I think the retraction apology should be the same size and position as it was printed.
Maybe it was aliens.
Or giant mosquitoes in winter in SEAL outfits.
Oddly enough that Cliff case does play a part as does the ECHR
In so doing, he has created a precedent with worrying implications for press freedom. It suggests that reporting the identity of anyone whose home is raided, or who is known to be under police investigation prior to being arrested or charged, amounts to an intrusion into their privacy. It means that Mann has broken new legal ground by rebalancing the two articles in the European convention on human rights that deal with respect for private life and freedom of expression. He has decided that article 8, the right to privacy, now trumps article 10, the public’s right to know.
That's not correct. The right to privacy doesn't take priority over the right to free expression. Neither is an absolute right, and sometimes the two are in tension. The court decided IN THAT INSTANCE that the infringement into Richard's privacy wasn't outweighed by the public interest in the reporting. (Public interest isn't just stuff the public would be curious about, it's a higher standard that that).
That won't always be the case and it's different to what's happened here. In most cases, the media simply reported facts, and the courts won't lightly interfere with the media's right to report (and the public's right to read about) arrests in connection with matters of serious public concern. If the public draws an adverse inference from arrests (when we all know that many people are arrested without ever being subsequently convicted of a crime), then that's the public's mistake.
As for the Daily Mail, I'm not convinced that their normal shitty snotty tone changes anything. Being critical of someone isn't itself an invasion of privacy. Neither is it defamatory.
In any case, suggestions that the couple are going to being retiring as millionaires next year are woefully off the mark. I don't think they'll be raking in significant amounts of money.
"Until directed by the courts.
Fify there."
Thanks for your considered and stimulating contribution, Mike, always appreciated.
As for the Daily Mail, I’m not convinced that their normal shitty snotty tone changes anything. Being critical of someone isn’t itself an invasion of privacy. Neither is it defamatory.
So calling someone a moron on the front page of a national newspaper combined with claiming they may have ruined Christmas is not defamatory. Is it the fact that it was posed as a question means they are okay to do it? The fact that you can run that headline for 2 innocent people should bot be able to go unchecked.
Public interest isn’t just stuff the public would be curious about, it’s a higher standard that that
The Public Interest phrase regularly winds me up; it was the reason the BBC gave for the Cliff Richard intrusion/debacle.
It might partly be down to the ambiguity of English, but Interest in this context should be interpreted as benefit and in the public interest as something from which the public benefit from knowing; it does not mean or justify the publication of an interesting bit of salacious gossip that the public would be interested in knowing.
That won’t always be the case and it’s different to what’s happened here. In most cases, the media simply reported facts, and the courts won’t lightly interfere with the media’s right to report (and the public’s right to read about) arrests in connection with matters of serious public concern. If the public draws an adverse inference from arrests (when we all know that many people are arrested without ever being subsequently convicted of a crime), then that’s the public’s mistake.
The problem is that the Cliff Richard ruling effectively up-ended the status quo when it comes to reporting criminal investigations and what constitutes a reasonable expectation of privacy for those under investigation.
The media will find themselves increasingly tested in a lot of areas where previously they had carte blanche to print facts, and their 'interpretation' of them.
It all hinges on whether the courts decide that being under investigation (as per Cliff Richard) has the same status as being under investigation, but additionally under arrest (these two). I can't see why there wouldn't be the same expectation of privacy.
Wouldn't be surprised if the courts decide to rein back the Cliff ruling a bit though, so these two might end up disappointed. Otherwise we are heading for the French model where stories have to meet a very high standard in terms of national interest to overcome privacy.
Regards this couples ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’ I suspect that the police’s decision at the time to not reveal their identity (the statement was careful just to say that ‘a 47-year-old man and a 54-year-old woman from Crawley had been arrested in relation to the incident’) will have a bearing on whether the press have overstepped the mark. Some papers are at pains to point out that they did not name them, and excuses and justifications are being bandied about by those that did; the Sun editor tried to suggest that it was only through their reporting that the couples alibis were revealed, lol. This all strikes me that the papers that revealed identities are aware that they overstepped the mark and are likely liable.
I just think they haven't got a clue how the courts will view this, TBH. Some of it, like the 'morons' headline, they would dress up as 'fair comment on facts known to be true' (!) to fudge the defamation issue, but in reality, this is all about privacy, and is unknown territory for the press and the courts.
I suspect the police don't have an issue in terms of privacy. They never officially release names of those arrested unless they need more public help, so unless it could be demonstrated that they have confirmed identities or tipped off the media, which I doubt in this case, they are in the clear.
Yes, the Sun editor is clutching at straws there. The alibi would emerge within about five minutes of questioning, and would be confirmed within a couple of hours. Can't see why the police needed them in for 36 hours, but that's another issue (and maybe a more fruitful one in terms of compo for the couple!)
Can we change the title to Dublin, please?