Top Cats Hat Posted July 26, 2018 Share Posted July 26, 2018 Are you suggesting that those in the public eye should have fewer rights when it comes to privacy than the rest of us? Not at all. Those who court publicity have a reasonable expectation that the media will take more of an interest in their affairs that someone who is little known. That is just a fact of modern life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted July 26, 2018 Share Posted July 26, 2018 The ruling turned on the judge's interpretation of the Human Rights Act and what protections it gives to privacy, particularly of those already in the public eye. The Appeal Court judges may well take a different view. Photographs were taken of the Duchess of Cambridge in the summer of 2012 and show the royal couple on a terrace by a swimming pool at a private chateau, they got compensation because they were on private land. The BBC were said to have taken photos of Cliffe Richards under-wear via an helicopter, the helicopter was taking photos of private land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted July 30, 2018 Share Posted July 30, 2018 But, given that he was at the time not a person charged with any criminal offence: why the intrusive BBC coverage and whatever possessed SYP to offer it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flanker7 Posted July 30, 2018 Share Posted July 30, 2018 But, given that he was at the time not a person charged with any criminal offence: why the intrusive BBC coverage and whatever possessed SYP to offer it? SYP didn't offer it. The BBC approached SYP and said they knew about the operation and wanted in on the timing - or they would reveal the whole thing. SYP, to their eternal shame, folded. They should have said publish and be damned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarPig Posted July 30, 2018 Share Posted July 30, 2018 SYP didn't offer it. The BBC approached SYP and said they knew about the operation and wanted in on the timing - or they would reveal the whole thing. SYP, to their eternal shame, folded. They should have said publish and be damned That would have been quite a different result wouldn't it. The investigation would perhaps have folded due to the publicity, and possible loss of evidence, resulting in folk assuming he was guilty. Quite the opposite of how folk think now. The only difference being a few hours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flanker7 Posted July 30, 2018 Share Posted July 30, 2018 That would have been quite a different result wouldn't it. The investigation would perhaps have folded due to the publicity, and possible loss of evidence, resulting in folk assuming he was guilty. Quite the opposite of how folk think now. The only difference being a few hours. * - My bold ........speak for yourself! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarPig Posted July 30, 2018 Share Posted July 30, 2018 * - My bold ........speak for yourself! I agree, but most folk seem to genuinely believe he is innocent. I guess we shall never know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted August 7, 2018 Share Posted August 7, 2018 I agree, but most folk seem to genuinely believe he is innocent. I guess we shall never know. Well, he is of course- given that he's not been charged with (let alone convicted of) anything. Remember: innocent unless proven guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flanker7 Posted August 7, 2018 Share Posted August 7, 2018 Well, he is of course- given that he's not been charged with (let alone convicted of) anything. Remember: innocent unless proven guilty. In your legal world - JS Even when you don't get charged with something that you did you can still be guilty of an offence. When was the last time you were guilty of breaking the speed limit. No-one says the guilty never get off with it at court. Do they Jeffrey? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Top Cats Hat Posted August 7, 2018 Share Posted August 7, 2018 (edited) Well, he is of course- given that he's not been charged with (let alone convicted of) anything. Remember: innocent unless proven guilty. Innocent has no legal status. A complaint has been made, an investigation carried out and the evidence obtained by that investigation does not meet the threshold for charging or there is no public interest in prosecution. The nearest thing to an 'innocent' outcome would be if there was a successful prosecution against the complainant for making a false allegation or an attempt to pervert the course of justice. There is no declaration of innocence, simply that the matter has been investigated and the case filed due to lack of evidence. That is why there is an argument for not releasing anyone's name until charges are brought. Edited August 7, 2018 by Top Cats Hat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now