Thursday, July 24, 2008
Max Mosely
Mr. Justice Eady awarded the 68-year-old £60,000 damages, dwarfing all earlier privacy ruling damages and prompting fears over the future of legitimate journalist investigations.
IMO: I would not like my private life to be infringed on in this way, and the Eady ruling certainly could prompt papers to seek smaller beer than Max Mosely. NoW itself seem not to have paid off the girls involved as much as they promised to do either, and I gather that this is so typical of Rupert's gutter press and similar publications. At the same time some of the S & M does seem to have involved Nazi style stuff and Mosely is the son of actual anti-Jew fascist Sir Oswald Mosely, a disciple of Adolf Hitler it has been said. In fact I feel more sympathy (not a lot !) for Adolf Hitler, a smart ranting populist politician with clear though unfortunate intent, than I do for an apparent spare time clown like Max Mosely. A bad show all round, and for reasons I now give, still to be taken very seriously.
The ruling was one of a series of findings Justice Eady and other High Court judges have made in recent years in privacy cases against British newspapers under a provision in the 1998 European Convention on Human Rights. Legal experts say the rulings have shifted the balance in Britain in favor of celebrity plaintiffs and against newspapers and other media organizations in invasion-of-privacy cases.
IMO: I would go much further than that.
Claims (including probably by NoW) that the UK judges are now simply sucking up to the Parliament and taking away peoples civil rights and handing them over to faceless corrupt bureaucrats at the request of the PM and troughies like Levy seems to ring true. It is probably for the judges' own benefit as well as because of their incompetence. It seems that Dr. Peter Gauweiler MP (Munich South in Bavaria, Germany), member of the Bavarian conservative party (CSU), filed a constitutional complaint citing the unconstitutionality of the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon. This follows an earlier complaint filed against the rejected Constitutional treaty in 2005. In effect, the process ratifying the Lisbon treaty in German is at a standstill pending the constitutional ruling.
IMO: It does now appear that many judicial rulings in the UK are now bad in both law and fact. I refer specifically to Dr. Dietrich Murswiek's comments to the effect that the Lisbon treaty and the European Constitution treaty are the same, something both I and the Irish voters noted very early on. The UK judges have become total crap on that one as they said the opposite, presumably because Gordon Brown wanted them to do so... In Eady's case this does seem to tie in with other of his rulings, for example the Ehrenfeld ruling which is presently causing much disputation in the USA and could alter the tenuous link between US and UK law adversely. I'd hate to have anything to do with NoW but if I did, I would feel tempted to look into the personal private lives of Judges like Eady.
Mr. Justice Eady awarded the 68-year-old £60,000 damages, dwarfing all earlier privacy ruling damages and prompting fears over the future of legitimate journalist investigations.
IMO: I would not like my private life to be infringed on in this way, and the Eady ruling certainly could prompt papers to seek smaller beer than Max Mosely. NoW itself seem not to have paid off the girls involved as much as they promised to do either, and I gather that this is so typical of Rupert's gutter press and similar publications. At the same time some of the S & M does seem to have involved Nazi style stuff and Mosely is the son of actual anti-Jew fascist Sir Oswald Mosely, a disciple of Adolf Hitler it has been said. In fact I feel more sympathy (not a lot !) for Adolf Hitler, a smart ranting populist politician with clear though unfortunate intent, than I do for an apparent spare time clown like Max Mosely. A bad show all round, and for reasons I now give, still to be taken very seriously.
The ruling was one of a series of findings Justice Eady and other High Court judges have made in recent years in privacy cases against British newspapers under a provision in the 1998 European Convention on Human Rights. Legal experts say the rulings have shifted the balance in Britain in favor of celebrity plaintiffs and against newspapers and other media organizations in invasion-of-privacy cases.
IMO: I would go much further than that.
Claims (including probably by NoW) that the UK judges are now simply sucking up to the Parliament and taking away peoples civil rights and handing them over to faceless corrupt bureaucrats at the request of the PM and troughies like Levy seems to ring true. It is probably for the judges' own benefit as well as because of their incompetence. It seems that Dr. Peter Gauweiler MP (Munich South in Bavaria, Germany), member of the Bavarian conservative party (CSU), filed a constitutional complaint citing the unconstitutionality of the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon. This follows an earlier complaint filed against the rejected Constitutional treaty in 2005. In effect, the process ratifying the Lisbon treaty in German is at a standstill pending the constitutional ruling.
IMO: It does now appear that many judicial rulings in the UK are now bad in both law and fact. I refer specifically to Dr. Dietrich Murswiek's comments to the effect that the Lisbon treaty and the European Constitution treaty are the same, something both I and the Irish voters noted very early on. The UK judges have become total crap on that one as they said the opposite, presumably because Gordon Brown wanted them to do so... In Eady's case this does seem to tie in with other of his rulings, for example the Ehrenfeld ruling which is presently causing much disputation in the USA and could alter the tenuous link between US and UK law adversely. I'd hate to have anything to do with NoW but if I did, I would feel tempted to look into the personal private lives of Judges like Eady.
# posted by uv : 4:55 PM
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
