Who exactly does Alan Shatter think he is?

Zebra3

Shatter should get on with his job. (No, not defending Israel and its crimes against humanity).

But getting this country out of the sh*t.

Who cares about some Brit married to a German being photographed in France? :rolleyes:

My name is URL

Fenian Army wrote: »

Fine Gaelers have a fetish for censorship, sure he wants to bring back section 31

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/minister-criticises-rte-over-platform-given-to-dissidents-3228142.html

Did Shatter express any concerns regarding privacy and decency when the papers splashed images of your man's freshly murdered corpse all over their pages?

Dr Turk Turkelton

Zebra3 wrote: »

Shatter should get on with his job. (No, not defending Israel and its crimes against humanity).

But getting this country out of the sh*t.

Who cares about some Brit married to a German being being photographed in France? :rolleyes:

Completely agree he seems to be more interested in foreign affairs rather than justice.
Definitely in the wrong portfolio.

Larbre34

Biggins wrote: »

REALLY?

http://www.thejournal.ie/childrens-rights-referendum-date-november-10-599760-Sep2012/



http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0918/childrens-referendum-to-be-held-on-10-november.html



Right - got it!

Theres a particularly good reason thats not going to happen, which I cant divulge but will out in the next few days, believe me when I say it wont take place that day.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Fenian Army wrote: »

what does what I said have to do with the civil war? (dare I ask)

First two words. Unless you can prove a direct connection between involvement with Fine Gael and a desire for censorship. Why even bring the party into it? It's Shatter's remit.

And for the last time (generally, not to you) this thread has NOTHING to do with censorship.

JRant

Great stuff from Mr Shatter altogether. The really scary thing is that he knows that we know this has nothing to do with privacy and he couldn't care less.
Privacy is just an abstract term and doesn't really exist. I mean the way we are tracked in everyday life as it is and some people still think they have 'privacy'.

Fenian Army

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

First two words. Unless you can prove a direct connection between involvement with Fine Gael and a desire for censorship. Why even bring the party into it? It's Shatter's remit.

And for the last time (generally, not to you) this thread has NOTHING to do with censorship.

Because he is a member of the party and relies on the support of the party? ( was that a serious question? )

FG have a long history of censorship, section 31 being a prime example. I linked to an article which clearly demonstrates his appetite for censorship

Of course its censorship, if it was a regular celeb he wouldn't care or say anything.

Biggins

Larbre34 wrote: »

Theres a particularly good reason thats not going to happen, which I cant divulge but will out in the next few days, believe me when I say it wont take place that day.

Well if your right - and I won't push you for further info - it won't be the first u-turn by Enda!

Chuck Stone

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Privacy laws? Long overdue. As I said in a different thread, everyone is entitled to privacy. There is no difference between a royal and a celeb and no difference between a celeb and an ordinary Joe. End of.

Fundamental misunderstanding. There is a huge difference between an ordinary Joe/sephine and a celeb/royal (CR). CR's use the media to convey messages and raise their profiles. For a CR to suddenly start crying over the media not acting within arbitrary parameters that they've decided upon only serves to highlight their perverse sense of privilege/entitlement and extreme hypocrisy.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So why are an Irish newspaper publishing them?

Why not? She's just another celeb with her baps out on a balcony.

What's that Fred? We should respect your royals?

Bahahhahaha! XD

Fenian Army

My name is URL wrote: »

Did Shatter express any concerns regarding privacy and decency when the papers splashed images of your man's freshly murdered corpse all over their pages?

did he ****!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Fenian Army wrote: »

Because he is a member of the party and relies on the support of the party? ( was that a serious question? )

FG have a long history of censorship, section 31 being a prime example. I linked to an article which clearly demonstrates his appetite for censorship

Of course its censorship, if it was a regular celeb he wouldn't care or say anything.

You said "Fine Gael" - you did not say Shatter. Now again, is there any direct link between being a member of Fine Gael and wanting censorship. Is this part of their manifesto? have the ever made any pledges of this nature?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Fundamental misunderstanding. There is a huge difference between an ordinary Joe/sephine and a celeb/royal (CR). CR's use the media to convey messages and raise their profiles. For a CR to suddenly start crying over the media not acting within arbitrary parameters that they decide only serves to highlight their perverse sense of privileged/entitlement and extreme hypocrisy.

Where in their contracts do they waive their rights to privacy?

There is no connection between PR and privacy. This idea that because someone is famous, they therefore obviously use the press and therefore have no furhter need/desire/right to privacy is bollox.

Many people use the media to advertise. Do they also become fair game?

Fratton Fred

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So why are an Irish newspaper publishing them?

Why not? She's just another celeb with her baps out on a balcony.

What's that Fred? We should respect your royals?

Bahahhahaha! XD

I was thinking more about respecting a young woman's right to privacy. The fact she is a royal is irrelevant tbh.

Colette McArdle is just another celebrity, how would you feel if someone stuck a camera over her back wall and took a photo of her tits.

I'm sure the Daily Mail would love to publish those photos.

rasper

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

rasper wrote: »

Very wary of a blueshirt government who first opportunity wants to rush through privacy laws , for who exactly , and yet anything remotely reformist eg upward only rents or universal healthcare is unconstitutional .
Smells like censorship to me shatter

Jesus Christ, if you can't tell the difference between freedom of expression and privacy you should not be allowed anywhere near the internet. Or a camera.

Who mentioned freedom of expression , what's that got to do with anything or do you just shout out random phrases

Boombastic

Shatter is an @rse.



Day1 : Kate is pictures topless outrage
Day 2 : Kate is pictured meeting a topless warrior woman somewhere


What about this Warrior womans right to privacy? Why are we bowing to UK? Are they handing out the soup again?

Chuck Stone

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

This idea that because someone is famous, they therefore obviously use the press and therefore have no furhter need/desire/right to privacy is bollox.

It's a symbiotic relationship. The C/R needs the media and the media needs the C/R. For a C/R to turn around and say 'I only want the limelight on my terms' is bollocks. They've put themselves out there as a public curiosity so they shouldn't get all butt-hurt when the media treats them as such.

It was her bad judgement for getting her baps out on a balcony. Even if the punishment for taking photos of 'royals' (spit) was the death penalty people would still take sneaky pics and publish them anonymously.

Chuck Stone

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Colette McArdle is just another celebrity, how would you feel if someone stuck a camera over her back wall and took a photo of her tits.

I had to google 'Colette McArdle' to see who the hell you were talking about- she obviously doesn't court the media like celebs and royals.

Regardless, if she got her baps out on a balcony then I would say she was stupid but I don't think there'd be a huge appetite to see them or half the furore if pics were published.

mackg

Chuck Stone wrote: »

It's a symbiotic relationship. The C/R needs the media and the media needs the C/R. For a C/R to turn around and say 'I only want the limelight on my terms' is bollocks. They've put themselves out there as a public curiosity so they shouldn't get all butt-hurt when the media treats them as such.

It was her bad judgement for getting her baps out on a balcony. Even if the punishment for taking photos of 'royals' (spit) was the death penalty people would still take sneaky pics and publish them anonymously.

What if she got them out in her bedroom, still fair game?

Zebra3

mackg wrote: »

What if she got them out in her bedroom, still fair game?

Are ya still talking photos or something else?

mackg

Zebra3 wrote: »

Are ya still talking photos or something else?

Tough times, man has got to make a living :pac:

Chuck Stone

mackg wrote: »

What if she got them out in her bedroom, still fair game?

Close the curtains?

She has much more control over her own privacy than she does over an army of droolers who are interested in the minutiae of her life.

I need to clarify my position here. I believe the pics are in bad taste. I think the pics taken of Diana in a gym a few years back were totally unfair. Hidden cameras and all that crack? Yeah, that's bad and people should be severly punished for that - getting your baps out on a balcony? Poor judgement imo.

nachocheese

Let's not be so quick to mock Shatter or certainly not bring up him being a jew, that's petty. He has done some very good stuff in his time in office after all (the personal insolvency being set up was brilliant, for instance).

I think there's something very wrong with society that tolerating perverts, financially motivated or otherwise, spying on private individuals in a private residence, taking pictures of them naked and then selling those pictures. Kate wasn't parading around Puerto Banus topless, she was at the pool of a privately owned house, doing something huge numbers of women do and in the expectation of privacy. She was entitled to privacy there, as each of us are in our own homes/holiday apartments/villas etc.

The whole thing has been sensationalised to the max but the underlying fundamentals behind the uproar are right. This stuff shouldn't be tolerated and if it takes a royal being used in such a way to bring about change then so be it.

keith16

Alan Shatter, the man is so utterly hypocritical and repulsive. Remember when his gaff got burgled and the garda chopper and whole firing squad were out looking for the perp? Yet he is happy to close any number of garda stations and have us ordinary JOES wait for god knows how long.

Is it really any surprise to anyone that this is the type of nonsense he is involved in?

He is the very embodiment of the "do as I say, not as I do" attitude of this government. The fcuker is probably exempt from the household charge too.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

rasper wrote: »

Who mentioned freedom of expression , what's that got to do with anything or do you just shout out random phrases

You said "censorship" - this implies blocking freedom of expression.

This is one of those bull**** thigns that crops up every now and again with media: privacy is not an antoynm for censorship, and protecting someone's privacy does not imply blocking freedom of expression.

Chuck Stone

nachocheese wrote: »

Let's not be so quick to mock Shatter or certainly not bring up him being a jew, that's petty.

WTF has his religion got to do with this issue?

Biggins

Chuck Stone wrote: »

WTF has his religion got to do with this issue?

Heaven knows!

keith16

Chuck Stone wrote: »

WTF has his religion got to do with this issue?

The Duchess lovely breasts aren't "kosher".

mikom

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

Who exactly does Alan Shatter think he is?

Sounds like a case for Columbo.

Nodin

Chuck Stone wrote: »

WTF has his religion got to do with this issue?

It's his blue shirt thats showing here.

ilovesleep

CJC999 wrote: »

Alan shatter has shown himself time and time again to be a jumped up little dictator. He couldn't care less about ordinary people or crime levels. He hasn't introduced a single law that will make any difference to crime levels in this country. He's out for himself and his cronies and no one else. This new privacy bill is for his benefit, not Kate middletons or any other famous person. It's because the vast majority of current politicians are rotten to the core and he knows they will all eventually be found out. He's on a damage limitation exercise for the future.

Shatter and FG are up to their necks in sh1te and filth no doubt and it's only a matter of time before the media gets a load on them and gets all over them to expose the cheats that they are.

Better introduce a law to save their asses by making it an offence for the media to expose their asses under some privacy law.

It certainly isn't for the benefit for the majority of Irish people. As already mentioned above about some news on the cork drugs, and a death in a family down in cork.
Do you think the media will be outside my bedroom trying to get a picture of my tits and cúnt. Would they fcuk.
How about outside Biggins bedroom? Or outside the bedroom of any one of us (unless if you're a celeb and have the potential to increase sales of a paper or magazine but then more than likely they are already covered by law - perhaps stalking).

This proposal is for the benefit of FG and government and their cronies and no one else.

mcmoustache

nachocheese wrote: »

Let's not be so quick to mock Shatter or certainly not bring up him being a jew, that's petty. He has done some very good stuff in his time in office after all (the personal insolvency being set up was brilliant, for instance).

As far as I can tell, you're the only person to do this.

If I missed the post that mentioned anything about him being a jew, then I'm willing to be corrected.

If not, then I think it was very petty of you to bring his jewishness into this thread. Very petty indeed.

mackg

mcmoustache wrote: »

As far as I can tell, you're the only person to do this.

If I missed the post that mentioned anything about him being a jew, then I'm willing to be corrected.

If not, then I think it was very petty of you to bring his jewishness into this thread. Very petty indeed.

There was the comment about him being a West Israeli not a West Brit. Pretty sure that was just a joke though.

galgar

nachocheese wrote: »

Let's not be so quick to mock Shatter or certainly not bring up him being a jew, that's petty. He has done some very good stuff in his time in office after all (the personal insolvency being set up was brilliant, for instance).

The Personal Insolvency Bill is far from brilliant. It is not the cure that we were promised, the banks will still have the final say in all matters.

But this thread is about privacy.
I don't the law in France but in England and Ireland there is a legal right to photograph and publish those photographs of anyone in a public place without their consent and if in a private place without their consent providing there is no trespass.

nachocheese

Chuck Stone wrote: »

WTF has his religion got to do with this issue?

Oh I thought I'd read jibes about Israel previously in the thread. Perhaps I'm mistaken. My point was that bringing it up, as I believed it was, would be pathetic.

nachocheese

galgar wrote: »

there is a legal right to photograph and publish those photographs of anyone in a public place without their consent and if in a private place without their consent providing there is no trespass.

Weren't they on the grounds of a privately held residence?

Edit: Sorry, misread that a little.

It may be legal but I don't think it's right that someone can sit with essentially a telescope attached a camera, point it in people's private residences and publish their findings. They weren't allowed onto the premises themselves, they're not wanted there, there is an expectation of privacy, etc.

Oh well, I'm sure the "photographer" in question hasn't many days left on his calendar after this. Her majesty's secret service will probably do a number on him, and rightly so

Boombastic

nachocheese wrote: »

Weren't they on the grounds of a privately held residence?

the photographer wasn't

galgar

As far as I am aware the photographer was on a public highway and thus was entitled to photograph.

mcmoustache

mackg wrote: »

There was the comment about him being a West Israeli not a West Brit. Pretty sure that was just a joke though.

Yeah, I remember that comment but it's not quite the same thing. The person with the low post-count to whom I posed the question seemed to be trying to pull the anti-semitism card against Shatter's detractors.

I thought that was a bit douchey.

Dr Turk Turkelton

nachocheese wrote: »

Chuck Stone wrote: »

WTF has his religion got to do with this issue?

Oh I thought I'd read jibes about Israel previously in the thread. Perhaps I'm mistaken. My point was that bringing it up, as I believed it was, would be pathetic.

No what would be pathetic would be jumping to conclusions without reading the thread properly just to arrive in as the high horse brigade.

Fratton Fred

galgar wrote: »

As far as I am aware the photographer was on a public highway and thus was entitled to photograph.

That good old word "entitled".

Biggins

galgar wrote: »

As far as I am aware the photographer was on a public highway and thus was entitled to photograph.

Just as regards Ireland, for reference: http://www.digitalrights.ie/2006/05/09/photographers-rights/

Photographing on Public or Private Property?

In general, you are entitled to take pictures of anything you wish, when in a public place. You may take pictures of private property, people, or anything else you fancy.

On private property, you are also generally allowed to take photographs, provided you have permission to be on the property.
However, the owner may impose conditions on your entry to the property, which may include a complete ban on photography, a ban on photography of certain things, or a ban on certain types of photography (eg, flash photography, video photography etc).

Even where permission is not explicitly needed to enter the property, the owner is entitled to demand that you cease taking photographs, or that you leave the property. If you are asked to leave a property, you should not be threatened or attacked. Reasonable force may be used to remove you if necessary, however. In general, you are better off leaving when asked – the fact that you should not be threatened, does not mean you won’t be. The owner has no right to confiscate or damage any of your equipment.

The occupier of a private property, where he is not the owner, has the same rights as the owner would have. Security guards may also act for the owner or occupier in exercising these rights.
Violating the conditions under which you were admitted to a property voids your permission to be there, and you may be guilty of trespass. Trespass is a crime in some unusual cases but damages are more commonly sought in a civil case.


Photographs in a Public Place

You are not allowed to harass people in the course of your photography – stalking someone, or repeatedly blocking their way to take a photograph of them could be construed as harassment; simply taking a photograph of them probably won’t. Taking photographs of people in public is generally allowed – however, an exception is made where the subject would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. You’re perfectly entitled to take a photograph of someone walking down the street – but hiding in a tree to take a photo of them in their home may get you into trouble.

You are not allowed to obstruct movement on the highway (roads, footpaths, cycle paths etc), or the work of a police officer, while taking photographs. Whether you are regarded as obstructing will depend on the situation, and you will generally be asked to move along by the police, if they view your behaviour as obstructive. If you refuse to do so, or persist in obstructing the highway, however, you may be arrested.


Legal Restrictions

What you can do with your photographs is limited by Irish law. You may be found in contempt of court if you publish a photograph of a defendant, where identity is in question, that is, where witnesses may be asked to identify the defendant. You may also be found in contempt of court if you publish a photograph that might prejudice the defendant by insinuating his guilt (for example, of him being brought to court in handcuffs), or a photograph that might reveal prior convictions (for example, of the defendant at a previous trial).


Your Subject’s Rights

Can the subject of a photo prevent you from publishing it? Most of the caselaw in Ireland has centred on the misuse of celebrity images to imply an endorsement of a commercial good or service. This is dealt with by the courts, in general under the normal rules covering passing off. So, if the subject’s image might be worth money if used in an advertisement or as part of a product endorsement, they have a right to protect the income flowing from that, as a property right.

But what about the rest of the world, who don’t make their fortunes by assuring the world that, as Hollywood millionaires, they choose only the finest home-bottle hair-dyes to colour their hair? As the actor Gordon Kaye found out, when he was photographed by an interviewer whilst recovering from a serious head injury in hospital, there’s not much anyone can do to prevent you from publishing your photos. Provided your photographs are genuine, even if they would bring the subject down in the eyes of society, they’re not libellous.

Up to now, the right to privacy has been largely determined by a mixture of Constitutional rights, and ECHR caselaw – the Minister for Justice has previously said that the private interactions of a person – even in a public place – may be covered by the right to privacy – for example, while doing the shopping, or meeting a friend for coffee. But, once the interactions become public – at an awards ceremony, or waving from the podium at the Olympic Games you lose that right to privacy. It may be hoped that the forthcoming Privacy Bill will clear up these issues, but for now, it is generally safe to presume that you can publish your photographs, unless your subject was in a situation where a reasonable person would believe that they’d brought their ‘portable sphere of privacy’ out with them.

In short, your subject can object to the publication of photos of them if: The photographs are untrue – they’ve been altered in some way, to show something that isn’t the case; The photographs are interfering with the subject’s commercial endorsement business; The photographs are tortiously violating the subject’s privacy.
The last option is still not entirely clear, but use common sense and remember the hypothetical “reasonable person”, and you shouldn’t go too far wrong.

mackg

galgar wrote: »

As far as I am aware the photographer was on a public highway and thus was entitled to photograph.

Pic of where he was in relation to them.


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80784589&postcount=11

Biggins

mackg wrote: »

Pic of where he was in relation to them.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80784589&postcount=11

As like the Irish laws, I think I would have had a reasonable expectation of privacy, to be honest.
Especially based on that!

infodox

I hope they do pass a privacy bill...

So I can promptly press charges against Eircom for deep packet inspection and traffic interception. Sniffing my private communications in their attempt to further the cause of censorship in then name of "Copyright".

Then I'd sue the revenue commissioners for being nosey b-stards and prying into my private sh-t.

Followed by the papers for reporting on it, hence violating my privacy.

(Tongue is firmly in cheek there!)

Though privacy bills are needed, a FAR more important one is getting rid of this bullsh-t called the "Blasphemy act". Fer christ sake, what f-cking year are we in?

RED PASSION

Balmed Out wrote: »

He should do nothing at all until we have a similar situation of our own involving mary harney and then resign for not having tackled the situation sooner.

Would this sell papers

Chuck Stone

mackg wrote: »

Pic of where he was in relation to them.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80784589&postcount=11

Which makes her decision to go topless even more misguided (naive?). There's a vast expanse of territory from where a long lens could pry. I thought the photographer would have had a much more difficult job of getting the pic.

Nodin

RED PASSION wrote: »

Would this sell papers

Paper bags to prevent glimpses, certainly.

Pottler

I for one am glad someone is there to protect me from shocking images of scrawny Royal Boobies. The fact that they might have other motives totally passes over my head and of course they do not want to curtail the freedom of the press by the back door. To say that is the case is to be honest disengenuous.

galgar

Another overlooked fact is that a rich business man who controls the Irish Daily Star can threaten to close it down due to his own personal reasons. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of printing the pictures, this control by an individual is a threat to a free press.

FANTAPANTS

alan shatter is a prick thats my blow out

Helix

ilovesleep wrote: »

Ireland is a dictorship dressed up as a democracy.

if ireland was a dictatorship it would be a LOT better off