Patrick Foster..Times journo who outed Anon blogger

Wednesday, June 17, 2009 by charonqc

You may like to look at these posts by political bloggers who are none too keen on Mr Foster… sauce for the goose and gander?

1. Old Holborn

2. The People’s Republic of Mortimer

Posted in Charon | 16 Comments

16 Responses

on Wednesday, June 17, 2009 at 1:27 pm Jon

I like Dan Rather’s take on citizen journalism (below) more than Mr Foster’s, unfortunately print media is on it’s last legs and rather than evolving their model they lash out at social media in all ways, look how that worked for the music industry.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-06-16/tehran-twitter-and-tiananmen/
on Wednesday, June 17, 2009 at 3:12 pm jameshigham

This “outing” is an excrescence, seriously. If someone wishes to blog anonymously, so be it.
on Wednesday, June 17, 2009 at 3:15 pm charonqc

Jon…. excellent…. The Times journo may come to regret it… or so I am hearing through the grapevine…

James – Absolutely…. what possible harm is there. If an Anon blogger breaks the serious rules ID can be compelled anyway… if they can trace.
on Wednesday, June 17, 2009 at 3:21 pm Oedipus Lex

I’m still lost for words as to the petty mindedness of this entire sorry episode. I stopped buying the Times a while ago as it was getting a bit tabloid-esque. I will now not buy two copies a day.

Strangely I tried to leave a comment (not an abusive one) on the Times website and it never appeared. It was highlighted to me that there were only three comments, now I know why.

Utter twunt.
on Wednesday, June 17, 2009 at 4:18 pm cityunslicker

And I thought it was just Eady who was perverse when it came to rights of privacy. The printed press want it both ways, as usual.

There is no anonymity in the UK as we enter the orwellian age
on Wednesday, June 17, 2009 at 4:48 pm Old Holborn

I was quite amazed that Sir David Eady QC of *******L ****HOUSE 11111 ROAD XXXXX KENT ABC123 a man noted for his obsession with privacy, would do such a thing.

*****

Edited by Charon.. I have edited the comment to uphold privacy rights…. BUT I do appreciate the sentiment and point Old Holborn was making…. sauce for goose and gander.

I do, however, believe quite firmly in maintaining privacy – so I shall extend the same courtesy to Eady J.
on Wednesday, June 17, 2009 at 4:54 pm charonqc

Old Holborn… most surprising
on Wednesday, June 17, 2009 at 5:45 pm Anon

The consensus seems to be that the judge’s decision was the correct one at law.

Whilst the correctness, or otherwise, of the Times’ conduct is fair game, I fail to see why the judge should be criticised, or rounded upon, for doing his job and doing it properly.

There seems to be a worrying trend for members of the judiciary to be singled out for criticism over matters which are personal as opposed to being connected to their judicial function.

I don’t give a toss what Mr Justice Eady’s personal views are on either the privacy laws generally or his own personal privacy. I am concerned only that, when sitting in a judicial capacity, he correctly applies the law.

One hope’s OH sees sense and backtracks over his puerile line, which does him no credit.
on Wednesday, June 17, 2009 at 6:07 pm charonqc

I have thought carefully about the law on this matter.

Leaving aside compulsion in terms of disclosure of identity if a person commits offences online or defames – it seems not unreasonable that if a person chooses to blog anonymously the law of this country should permit this and uphold that right.

Bloggers not employed by the state or police or security services should, by definition of their private status in society, be entitled to blog openly or anonymously as they see fit.

While Eady J applied the law correctly as it stands, and in doing so discharged his duty as a judge correctly – it may be that this is a bad law?

I can see no reason at all why there should not be one law for those not employed by the state in a public capacity blogging – and a different law permitting disclosure for those bloggers employed by the state.

Personally, I would rather see a law upholding the right to blog anonymously – subject to the usual exceptions about serious criminal activity.

Most bloggers do not commit crimes online.

Just a thought.

Staying anonymous is fairly straightforward if one really wishes to – it seems NightJack made some fairly elementary mistakes in terms of ID paper trail. I would like to know if Patrick Foster came by ALL of his information lawfully from ‘deduction’.
on Wednesday, June 17, 2009 at 6:48 pm Mrs Raft

It is interesting that Patrick Foster was an accomplice in an act of voyeurism in 2006, where a friend took a film of an unsuspecting couple having sex in private, and Foster put it up on the web.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1531307/Student-barred-over-sex-film.html

The police would have had a struggle to get him under s.67 of the Sexual Offences Act, but given that sex offenders tend to be recidivist and have to checked early if they are to be checked at all, they should have done more than meekly hand it over to the the college authorities, who shouted and said Foster couldn’t go in to the bar for a few weeks.

At the very least, the police should have investigated and passed a file to the CPS, and then handed it to the college if there was no realistic prospect of conviction.

Wonder why they didn’t.
on Wednesday, June 17, 2009 at 8:22 pm A Former Officer

NightJack, if you are reading these posts! Please, for the love of god, continue writing. The support for you is much stronger than the small-minded idiots of the Times and Police force. Please, you have a gift that strikes a chord – please do not waste it and not share your talent with others.
on Wednesday, June 17, 2009 at 8:24 pm A Former Officer

Patrick Forester – you are no journalist, you are just a sad pathetic individual. When you look in a mirror are you proud of what you see? You are a shell of a man.
on Wednesday, June 17, 2009 at 8:35 pm charonqc

A Former Officer… Good ! I enjoyed reading Nightjack and enjoy other police blogs
on Wednesday, June 17, 2009 at 11:36 pm Jimmy Bastard

Sir,

A delightful and very imaginative police blog could well be obtained from Alnwick Police Station in Northumberland.

I have it on very good authority that they do like to spin a good yard when it comes to attempting to prosecute honest Glaswegian businessmen going about their daily toil. The odd stroke of a pen, the addition of words to a statement after a signature was obtained. That kind of thing.

I also believe that it is not considered to be the done thing to include the address of any witnesses involved when sending out a court summons?
I cannot honestly see many people arriving to pay me a visit to discuss the breaking of limbs of course, but even so.. a very bad show all round.
So many penalties that one must endure purely for having a rugby nose, and driving an expensive car it would seem.

I fear that a rather influential leading lady in the Scottish Law Society will be representing the afore mentioned gentleman early next month in the court of Englands Queen.

The outcome is indeed going to enhance ones bank balance after the stramash of lies has been examined to their fullest extent.

In anticipation, Friday’s lunch will be on me old boy.
Shall we rough it in the Lamb and Flag with those ghastly city types?

I’ll send a car… usual time.

cheerio,

JB
on Wednesday, June 17, 2009 at 11:44 pm charonqc

Sir James

As they say on that faux City Programme for completely barking ideas… The Dragon’s Den… I’m IN…

See you at the Lamb and Flag…

Would you mind if I bring my anonymous lap dancing friend?

Charon
on Thursday, June 18, 2009 at 12:14 am Jimmy Bastard

Sir,

If you must, but for goodness sake make sure he wears a shirt during the meal.

JB