Blogging - Courts will not protect anonyminity

[Slyder]

Originally Posted by Rob

Apparently it's in the public's interest for them to know who the author is so that they can then decide how authentic and experienced the post might be. That's despite the fact that naming the blogger could well affect his employment since blogs by their nature are often critical of policies.

He should of thought of that before "blogging" it then, surely?

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Slyder

He should of thought of that before "blogging" it then, surely?

We've had a rash of blogs from people in the public sector revealing just how shoddy things really are and how huge amounts of money thrown at the Police, NHS, etc. by the government have been swallowed up to create an army of people fiddling figures to hit targets set on a whim by some cretin in Westminster.

Now I'd imagine a lot of these people will have to judge whether its worthwhile possibly loosing their job to expose the truth and the government will be able to go back to the "everything is fine, crime is down more than half since Labour came to power, you've never been safer. The NHS is in great shape" line they spout.

[Maggy J]

Originally Posted by Slyder

He should of thought of that before "blogging" it then, surely?

Oh yes freedom of expression counts for nothing these days as one can always be accused of bringing your employer into disrepute when in fact those employers are employed by us Jo Public and it's in our interest for the truth to be told.

Whistle blowers rights are supposedly protected but the stats speak for themselves.All of them risk the chance of losing their jobs/profession and rather more have than haven't.

Blogs have been a way for truths to be outed and lies to have been exposed.

I personally think this is an attack on personal freedoms.

[Rob]

I don't understand the court's decision. Ok we don't know what legal arguments were presented and what legislation and case law was applied to this instance.

Remember it was journalists who were wanting to name the person. It wasn't a warrant from a judicial authority.

But whatever happened to the ludicrous human rights act whereby there is supposedly a right to privacy?

Article 8: Right to privacy

(1) Everyone has the right for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

(2) There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Once again the law is an ass. It seems to protect the wrongdoers i.e. those who have fallen foul of other laws, and not those who should deserve our protection.

It seems that the idea of "whistleblowing" isn't that easy either. You must do it the right way to the right people otherwise you are in the smelly stuff, despite your good intentions http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employme...es/DG_10026552

[Slyder]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Oh yes freedom of expression counts for nothing these days as one can always be accused of bringing your employer into disrepute when in fact those employers are employed by us Jo Public and it's in our interest for the truth to be told.

Unfortunatley these days you need to have denyability. I know a few people where i work who have lost there jobs because they have said the wrong thing (in there own time) on a blogging site.

[Matt D]

He's been given a written warning

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...olice-blogging

[Toto]

Originally Posted by Matt D

He's been given a written warning

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...olice-blogging

Of course, he broke the rules as a Police officer. If no action was taken that could have sent a message to other force members that this sort of thing is OK.

[Damien]

I can't see how The Times gains from this either..

[punky]

The really odd thing about this is after he was named, after he went through a court case to get an injunction against The Times to prevent them naming him - something that could have got him fired - he then published a column talking about everything, his name, his job, etc.... in The Times. You'd think he'd rather publish it in the Socialist Worker instead of The Times. But he did and doesn't seem that angry. Doesn't make sense.

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/...cle6515061.ece

[BenMcr]

Though that isn't much different than some of the Tabloids do - threaten to publish a story about someone unless they give them the interview telling 'their side of the story' of the very thing that was going to run anyway

[Derek]

Originally Posted by punky

You'd think he'd rather publish it in the Socialist Worker instead of The Times. But he did and doesn't seem that angry.

A written warning really is one of the lowest levels of punishment, the column paints the Police in a decent light. Maybe it was agreed in advance with the bosses and publishing that was part of his slap on the wrist.

---------- Post added at 19:08 ---------- Previous post was at 17:58 ----------

Some existing Police bloggers are already taking to their heals.

http://sheepdogsandwolves.blogspot.com/

The Times decided for whatever reason to expose NightJack's real identity. After a written warning, the deletion of his blog and now a lost case in the high court, NJ has been well and truly burned by the media and I've no doubt his career prospects are going to be extremely limited for some time, and I have no intention of putting myself on offer for that one now that a judge has ruled on it.

[Chrysalis]

is this link retrievable from the cache?

http://nightjack.wordpress.com/2008/...the-evil-poor/

[Derek]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...the-Times.html

The detective exposed by the Times as the man behind the anonymous NightJack police blog has begun legal proceedings against the newspaper.

Mr Horton, a serving officer in Lancashire, was exposed by the newspaper after a reporter hacked into his email account in 2009.

A High Court bid to prevent the Times from naming him was unsuccessful after a judge was told his identity had been gleaned by “deduction� using information that was in the public domain.

Mr Foster submitted a court statement claiming that he had worked out the officer’s identity via information on the internet, neglecting to mention the email hacking.

Mr Brett told the Leveson Inquiry last month that he told Mr Foster “not to engage� with the suggestion that he had hacked into Mr Horton’s emails because he “might have been prosecuted�.

Good. I'd like to see them prosecuted for lying to the court.

[Chris]

Mm, a nice juicy perjury trial. Stick it to 'em.

[Derek]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19409774

A journalist has been arrested as part of the Metropolitan Police's inquiry into allegations of computer hacking.

The man, understood to be 28-year-old reporter Patrick Foster, was arrested in London as part of Operation Tuleta.

It is believed it relates to the outing of an police blogger known as Nightjack, by the Times in 2009.

Mr Foster was also arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

Ho Ho Ho.