What a good week this has been!
In London the News of the World loses in court to Max Mosley - thanks goodness someone had enough money to stand up to that lying gutter rag.
Alicante shelves plans to ban nudity on its beaches.
London
OK, you are probably wondering why I am so pleased about Max Mosley's win over the News of the World. It's not because I don't agree with the freedom of the press, I do. What I am much against is the way that The News of the World operate stings on people in an effort to destroy their lives. They do this for money, not through any grand crusade to make the UK a safer place, not from any grand ideas of raising public morals, certainly not as a news story, as the article had no news, it was just a piece written to hurt or destroy the life of a man and to sell more papers.
I do not condone Mr Mosley for cheating on his wife for the last 48 years. As a swinger I believe that you should share your likes and dislikes with your partner. But I totally disagree with the idea that the public has a right to know about the private life of anybody, unless that person is commiting a crime.
The court case showed their editor and writer lying several times in the dock, as is outlined in the judges findings of the case. Mr Mosleys team exposed how the articles were to a large part fabricated, with the writer attempting to blackmail the girls in the case (4 out of 5 of whom say the story was a pack of lies, and the papers inside girl refusing to testify in the papers defence!).
This is normal practice for this "paper". I have been shown stories which are blatant lies where they "report" on supposed events at swingers clubs I know very well. They have attempted to carry out a sting on me in the past, and on one occasion attempted to destroy a friends family and social life - just because they needed to sell their trash, and we enjoy swinging.
They planted a girl who wanted to meet for sex, but she tried to hard to meet me, I got suspicious and declined to meet her. Sadly my friend fell for her charms, and allowed her to attend a party at his home. The people who paid her then wrote a story about what had supposedly happened at the party.
They claimed we were there to gain power, influence and money - no one except the girl employed by the paper was, the only people who made money from the party or the article were the girl and the NOTW. The rest of us were there for a swingers party.
This was not a simple case of producing a story, this was vicious campaign to destroy my friend, with copies of the article hand delivered to his wife, children, friends and business associates on the night before publication.
There was no genuine "public interest", as we none of us held positions of power nor were any of us public figures. We worked in diverse businesses in different parts of the country and abroad.
To be "in the public interest" an article needs to be disclosing a wrong doing, or exposing someone doing something they either claim they do not do, or which they preach against.
I know several journalists who are active swingers, but who write articles against the lifestyle when one is demanded by their editor or owner, these are the people who should be exposed.
The article with which the NOTW fill their pages are "of public interest" that is people are interested in them, as a form or voyeurism. The stories on their own have no merit, and are purely designed to hurt the victims and sell papers.
When challenged the NOTW writers pretend not to understand the difference between the two terms, and as the judge in this case said, they rely on the victims being too embarrased or too poor to make a legal challenge.
Listening to the editor reading his interpretation of the verdict outside the court you would think the the judge had found in favour of them, wheras the judgement has a theme running all the way through that the paper acted in their own best interest, that the editor and writer lied, that they attempted to blackmail the witnesses, that they fabricated most of the story and that when they realised their case was going to be lost they made up several different defences for the story.
Seems I am not alone in thinking this was a good judgement, I just had a read throughthe comments section on the BBC Website, and most contributors think much as I, and I am sure many of you do.
-----------------------------------------------
Alicante.
Under the Spanish constitution, any body is allowed to appear naked anywhere on public land - beaches, streets, squares, forests, lakes, rivers etc. This is based in parton the European human rights act.
There have recently been attempts by some prudes (mainly ex-pats) to ban nudity on public beaches in the Alicante area. They even wanted to stop girls sunbathing topless.
Happily the town hall read the consitution before dragging the case through the courts, and have dropped all plans to ban nudity.
2 small triumphs for sanity in a crazy world.
In London the News of the World loses in court to Max Mosley - thanks goodness someone had enough money to stand up to that lying gutter rag.
Alicante shelves plans to ban nudity on its beaches.
London
OK, you are probably wondering why I am so pleased about Max Mosley's win over the News of the World. It's not because I don't agree with the freedom of the press, I do. What I am much against is the way that The News of the World operate stings on people in an effort to destroy their lives. They do this for money, not through any grand crusade to make the UK a safer place, not from any grand ideas of raising public morals, certainly not as a news story, as the article had no news, it was just a piece written to hurt or destroy the life of a man and to sell more papers.
I do not condone Mr Mosley for cheating on his wife for the last 48 years. As a swinger I believe that you should share your likes and dislikes with your partner. But I totally disagree with the idea that the public has a right to know about the private life of anybody, unless that person is commiting a crime.
The court case showed their editor and writer lying several times in the dock, as is outlined in the judges findings of the case. Mr Mosleys team exposed how the articles were to a large part fabricated, with the writer attempting to blackmail the girls in the case (4 out of 5 of whom say the story was a pack of lies, and the papers inside girl refusing to testify in the papers defence!).
This is normal practice for this "paper". I have been shown stories which are blatant lies where they "report" on supposed events at swingers clubs I know very well. They have attempted to carry out a sting on me in the past, and on one occasion attempted to destroy a friends family and social life - just because they needed to sell their trash, and we enjoy swinging.
They planted a girl who wanted to meet for sex, but she tried to hard to meet me, I got suspicious and declined to meet her. Sadly my friend fell for her charms, and allowed her to attend a party at his home. The people who paid her then wrote a story about what had supposedly happened at the party.
They claimed we were there to gain power, influence and money - no one except the girl employed by the paper was, the only people who made money from the party or the article were the girl and the NOTW. The rest of us were there for a swingers party.
This was not a simple case of producing a story, this was vicious campaign to destroy my friend, with copies of the article hand delivered to his wife, children, friends and business associates on the night before publication.
There was no genuine "public interest", as we none of us held positions of power nor were any of us public figures. We worked in diverse businesses in different parts of the country and abroad.
To be "in the public interest" an article needs to be disclosing a wrong doing, or exposing someone doing something they either claim they do not do, or which they preach against.
I know several journalists who are active swingers, but who write articles against the lifestyle when one is demanded by their editor or owner, these are the people who should be exposed.
The article with which the NOTW fill their pages are "of public interest" that is people are interested in them, as a form or voyeurism. The stories on their own have no merit, and are purely designed to hurt the victims and sell papers.
When challenged the NOTW writers pretend not to understand the difference between the two terms, and as the judge in this case said, they rely on the victims being too embarrased or too poor to make a legal challenge.
Listening to the editor reading his interpretation of the verdict outside the court you would think the the judge had found in favour of them, wheras the judgement has a theme running all the way through that the paper acted in their own best interest, that the editor and writer lied, that they attempted to blackmail the witnesses, that they fabricated most of the story and that when they realised their case was going to be lost they made up several different defences for the story.
Seems I am not alone in thinking this was a good judgement, I just had a read throughthe comments section on the BBC Website, and most contributors think much as I, and I am sure many of you do.
-----------------------------------------------
Alicante.
Under the Spanish constitution, any body is allowed to appear naked anywhere on public land - beaches, streets, squares, forests, lakes, rivers etc. This is based in parton the European human rights act.
There have recently been attempts by some prudes (mainly ex-pats) to ban nudity on public beaches in the Alicante area. They even wanted to stop girls sunbathing topless.
Happily the town hall read the consitution before dragging the case through the courts, and have dropped all plans to ban nudity.
2 small triumphs for sanity in a crazy world.
Labels: alicante beaches, jojo. swingers, max mosley, news of the world, notw, nudity
posted by dirtydavid at 3:53 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home