Grumble Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 Funny old world... nowadays employees are being encouraged to act as 'whistleblowers' in the hope of preventing questionable practices from continuing unchecked. And there are laws against harrassment. Unless of course if you work for - or upset - someone with enough money to prove that the sky is green and the grass is pink... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 If he names his sources I suspect his chances of then defending the "libel" would be zero. How come? If his sources are telling the truth, there is no libel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inspector Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 Wonder what would happen if 200 people stood up and shouted, "I told Roly" etc ? Btw, any news yet ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavros Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 I would still like to see those who gave contributions to the site come forward themselves instead of Mr Drowler being held up as some sort of living martyr. He provided a service, now lets see the nameless show him the true support that he deserves. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well this is the part I don't really understand. If what he wrote was true, then his sources should be backing him up and having this case dismissed. Their silence speaks volumes. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> But isn't it just slightly possible that they are keeping their right to silence as it could possibly adversely affect their livelihoods. Lets say for example, the information was accurate and the source was a Civil Servant. That person could risk losing their job, home etc for passing on information that they are aware of but disagree with. Have you ever told someone something in confidence? Perhaps you're right that their silence does speak volumes, depending on which way you're looking at it! Stav. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 Lets say for example, the information was accurate and the source was a Civil Servant. That person could risk losing their job, home etc for passing on information that they are aware of but disagree with. Have you ever told someone something in confidence? If it was in confidence, then telling some guy who ran a political website probably wasn't the smartest move. I can see what you're saying, but really, when you enter into employment you have a duty to keep confidential information just that. If you can't respect that then you can't complain at the consequences. If they were that concerned at the adverse effect on their livelihoods, they should have stfu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 Ans, consider this: I post something on this forum. Someone doesn't like it and takes legal action against Uni. Uni gets a gagging order, the site taken offline, his computer confescated. Uni also gets thretened with contempt because he can't name me. That would harm the forum no? It does depend on what basis they're holding you, as the author or the publisher, but either way, everything they've done so far, as far as I can see, is pre-prosecution. I personally think a ruling here is important to anything that publishes, from internet forums to web sites to newspapers and radio. I also don't know the full facts though, and there may be more specifics that link the author who's in the dock with whats been said. I hope so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crumlin Posted November 12, 2004 Author Share Posted November 12, 2004 The Deamster said that internet sites do not come under the protection as that afforded to newspapers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 Eek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 I post something on this forum. Someone doesn't like it and takes legal action against Uni. Uni gets a gagging order, the site taken offline, his computer confescated. Uni also gets thretened with contempt because he can't name me. Agreed, but from what I can tell, that's nothing like what we have here. Mr Drowler chose to publish the content himself and as far as I'm aware, he is just refusing to name his sources, whom assumedly he knows. If he could get away with saying they were anonymous submissions from Hotmail addresses, I can't see why he wouldn't hand them over. From an outsider's point of view, that's how it looks. I guess I'd need to be entrenched in the murky little world of little boys playing politics to know more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posters Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 It's a serious precedent, whichever way you view it. allegedly says Alan Smith 42 The High Street Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happy camper Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 If he was relying on anonymous hotmail addresses, he's no journalist. He would need to know who they are to decide if they were credible, or if they were that bloke in the pub who you try to hide from. If he was able to back up their statements, he wouldn't need to name them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loaf Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 Mr Drowler chose to publish the content himself Agreed, he's not like UniSol, i.e. responsible for a medium on which others are freely able to publish opinions (and similarly others have the same right to object or disagree with those opinions). If anything he's like a sole poster on his own locked forum, without anybody else being able to post, dispersing the most contraversial hearsay he chooses to print with no moderator to step in when there is a complaint... or something. (P.S. It's Drower, isn't it?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 (P.S. It's Drower, isn't it?) Heh probably. Never heard of the guy until a week ago. Must admit, it's a bit annoying when the two main local news websites don't seem to be carrying anything on it. I wouldn't mind seeing exactly what happened this afternoon. Not interested in the content of the case, just what he was fined for and what he was not found guilty of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 The problem on your island is that you have strange people with names like 'ans' who act as apologist for a very sorry state of affairs. Internationally the Isle of Man is viewed as a tax haven with banking secrecy laws that allow a lot of funny money to be laundered. It may of course happen in a lot of other places such as the City of London but at least in England there is a multi party system and vehicles such as Newsnight and Channel Four News where people can be publicly called to account. Whilst you persist in having a system which is unaccountable, lacking in transparency and not not subject to public scrutiny and dedate you will always have a system that is closed and vulnerable to greed and corruption. Even on Jersey they have offshore watch which is backed by Austin Mitchell MP. They attempt to show that the offshore jurisdictions only function in terms of money laundering with the active participation of firms of accountants and lawyers. Until these problems are addressed then corruption will be rampant. This is simply because there are vast sums of money to be made and where there's money there's muck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doric Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 I wish roly had got up and said something. Maybe defended himself all the way. it couldn't have been worse could it, not with the costs and all that. Although you could say his solicitor kept him from gaol maybe. but i know hindsite is pretty accurate isnt it. I ve just read ans' reply two back. I think that is quite unpleasant and definitely uncalled for. But there again it is your ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.