I very much doubt Adrian Pengelly can cure cancer. I watched Watchdog last night on BBC1 in disgust (sorry for this sounding like the opening line of a letter to ‘Points of View’) at the sometimes self-proclaimed Sir Adrian Pengelly – a man who maintains he can cure cancer using an energy that he transmits through his hands. Not only that – he can banish bad spirits from homes and can diagnose and treat sick animals according to him.
The first few clips on the Rogue Trader section of the show made a mockery of a man who was claiming to be talking to spirits (in a house rigged with tricks) and misdiagnosed a lame horse. I couldn’t decide if he was a foolish delusional man or a calculating immoral predator, especially after seeing the final excerpt on the show.
His claims turned from amusing to reprehensible when video footage was shown of this man telling a woman he has a 60-65% success rate in curing cancer – a totally unsubstantiated claim. It got worse when he also stated that his treatment was more successful on patients that do not use other conventional medicines like chemotherapy. Reading between the lines he was advising people that they would have a better chance if they declined other treatments – although I know there has been much debate among believers whether he was actually implying that or not.
Either way he offered his experience as proof of this and went on to say that he would advise his loved ones to decline other treatments if they were ill. The people who contact this man with cancer are ill, vulnerable, desperate and clutching at anything to help them so this is completely irresponsible advice and I’m shocked that he is allowed to get away with this. I would say that he should be investigated by the police, not a BBC1 show.
I have had a close family member in the position of being given news of terminal cancer and seen firsthand family members and I desperately trying to find a miracle treatment or medical breakthrough to reverse the horrendous news. This type of situation is definitely one where people are at their most vulnerable to any kind of positivity and it appals me that this type of immoral practice has been so far unpunished.
Adrian Pengelly and people who make unfounded claims like him are in my opinion evil and I can’t fathom how their consciences are allowing them to behave this way. To all the believers and people that have posted messages of support about this man on the many forums I have read today online – wake up, it’s not a witch hunt, he is a dangerous man making a living out of preying on vulnerable desperate people and it is interesting how his website with all his wild claims is now offline - not the sign of a genuine innocent man.
Friday, 18 September 2009
Friday, 4 September 2009
Teacher's Lose Out, Pupil's Lose out, Who are the Real Winner's?
The Herald reported that newly-qualified teachers across the country are increasingly finding it almost impossible to gain full-time permanent posts, nothing new but still frustrating all the same. The situation has been apparent for several years, as a series of surveys by the General Teaching Council of Scotland has shown.
The most recent of these, published in June, showed that two-thirds of new teachers had failed to gain full-time permanent work in Scottish schools almost a year after qualifying.
However, what is alarming about the most recent developments is that local authorities have been accused of intentionally preventing new teachers from securing permanent posts because they have fewer employment rights.
In the past few weeks, The Herald has been contacted by newly-qualified teachers from local authority areas, including Glasgow, Renfrewshire and South Lanarkshire, who claim their long-term supply contracts have not been renewed as they approach one year of continuous service.
Instead, the work is being given to teachers who have just completed their probationary year, which does not count towards employment history, or those who have already retired.
The timing is crucial, because working for a full year gives teachers the right to take a local authority to an employment tribunal or to receive a redundancy settlement.
In addition, under agreements between councils and teacher unions, staff who have been employed for more than one year acquire a right to seek a permanent contract of employment.
One teacher from Glasgow told The Herald: "There is a growing scrapheap of teachers who completed their probation two, three or even four years ago and are subject to this unethical policy of being passed-over for cheaper, inexperienced staff.
Glasgow also stands accused of failing to recognise teachers' rights to a permanent post once they have completed one year's continuous service, with the local branch of the Educational Institute of Scotland now seeking to take legal action against Glasgow City Council.
In a separate e-mail to The Herald, staff from South Lanarkshire raised similar concerns about the employment prospects of newly-qualified teachers.
"Teachers nearing the end of their continuous service had their contracts abruptly terminated two days before the end of term in June, therefore ending all employment rights," they said.
And in Renfrewshire, Wendy Alexander, Labour MSP for Paisley North, has taken the matter up on behalf of some of her constituents.
"Of more than 300 employees in our schools in the past two years, only four now have a full-time job teaching in Renfrewshire," said Ms Alexander.
The local authorities involved have all denied the fact that they are deliberately targeting newly-qualified teachers and have pointed to a number of other, unavoidable, factors for the trend, including the expected decline in teacher numbers due to many reaching retirement age has failed to materialise, with senior staff holding on for a few additional years of work because of the current economic climate.
In addition, Glasgow City Council pointed out that continued falling school rolls and school closures and mergers has led to a surplus of teachers and a reduction in the number of supply vacancies in the city.
Excuses or ‘reasons’ by local councils doesn’t really seem to help the issue in my opinion. I understand that there are too many teachers out there so why has the Government encouraged people into a profession or course of education that will ultimately leave people without financial security and work.
It’s also worrying to me as a parent to think that my daughter may be taught by several different ‘probationary year’ teachers when she starts school as students are all promised at least a year’s work when they graduate. So in order for this promise to be fulfilled are pupil’s really getting the best education they should be?
I am not suggesting that ‘probationary year’ teachers are not capable or competent but rather it seems to be an inefficient way to continually replace teacher’s especially when the one’s coming to the end of the first year are probably then ready and knowledgeable enough to continue and used to their class, then they are told they need to reapply for a job that statistics show they probably won’t get.
Instead because the work when you graduate guarantee, it seems that pupil’s and education are the one’s suffering, as well as the unemployed teacher’s – so in the end who’s benefiting? No one that I can think of.
Is it not better to have some kind of continuity in education? I remember at primary school in particular I only had two, maybe three teachers and it was better for parents who got to know their child’s class teacher and for young children who received minimum disruption and change.
I don’t know how the Government or maybe more appropriately the local council authorities can turn this around but I am sure on one thing – it’s a lose lose situation at the moment for many teacher’s and pupils alike.
The most recent of these, published in June, showed that two-thirds of new teachers had failed to gain full-time permanent work in Scottish schools almost a year after qualifying.
However, what is alarming about the most recent developments is that local authorities have been accused of intentionally preventing new teachers from securing permanent posts because they have fewer employment rights.
In the past few weeks, The Herald has been contacted by newly-qualified teachers from local authority areas, including Glasgow, Renfrewshire and South Lanarkshire, who claim their long-term supply contracts have not been renewed as they approach one year of continuous service.
Instead, the work is being given to teachers who have just completed their probationary year, which does not count towards employment history, or those who have already retired.
The timing is crucial, because working for a full year gives teachers the right to take a local authority to an employment tribunal or to receive a redundancy settlement.
In addition, under agreements between councils and teacher unions, staff who have been employed for more than one year acquire a right to seek a permanent contract of employment.
One teacher from Glasgow told The Herald: "There is a growing scrapheap of teachers who completed their probation two, three or even four years ago and are subject to this unethical policy of being passed-over for cheaper, inexperienced staff.
Glasgow also stands accused of failing to recognise teachers' rights to a permanent post once they have completed one year's continuous service, with the local branch of the Educational Institute of Scotland now seeking to take legal action against Glasgow City Council.
In a separate e-mail to The Herald, staff from South Lanarkshire raised similar concerns about the employment prospects of newly-qualified teachers.
"Teachers nearing the end of their continuous service had their contracts abruptly terminated two days before the end of term in June, therefore ending all employment rights," they said.
And in Renfrewshire, Wendy Alexander, Labour MSP for Paisley North, has taken the matter up on behalf of some of her constituents.
"Of more than 300 employees in our schools in the past two years, only four now have a full-time job teaching in Renfrewshire," said Ms Alexander.
The local authorities involved have all denied the fact that they are deliberately targeting newly-qualified teachers and have pointed to a number of other, unavoidable, factors for the trend, including the expected decline in teacher numbers due to many reaching retirement age has failed to materialise, with senior staff holding on for a few additional years of work because of the current economic climate.
In addition, Glasgow City Council pointed out that continued falling school rolls and school closures and mergers has led to a surplus of teachers and a reduction in the number of supply vacancies in the city.
Excuses or ‘reasons’ by local councils doesn’t really seem to help the issue in my opinion. I understand that there are too many teachers out there so why has the Government encouraged people into a profession or course of education that will ultimately leave people without financial security and work.
It’s also worrying to me as a parent to think that my daughter may be taught by several different ‘probationary year’ teachers when she starts school as students are all promised at least a year’s work when they graduate. So in order for this promise to be fulfilled are pupil’s really getting the best education they should be?
I am not suggesting that ‘probationary year’ teachers are not capable or competent but rather it seems to be an inefficient way to continually replace teacher’s especially when the one’s coming to the end of the first year are probably then ready and knowledgeable enough to continue and used to their class, then they are told they need to reapply for a job that statistics show they probably won’t get.
Instead because the work when you graduate guarantee, it seems that pupil’s and education are the one’s suffering, as well as the unemployed teacher’s – so in the end who’s benefiting? No one that I can think of.
Is it not better to have some kind of continuity in education? I remember at primary school in particular I only had two, maybe three teachers and it was better for parents who got to know their child’s class teacher and for young children who received minimum disruption and change.
I don’t know how the Government or maybe more appropriately the local council authorities can turn this around but I am sure on one thing – it’s a lose lose situation at the moment for many teacher’s and pupils alike.
Thursday, 3 September 2009
Is Working with Family Members a Good Idea?
“Don’t Look Back in Anger, I Heard You Say”, don’t worry I’m not going to write all the lyrics but I am singing away to myself as I write. When I was reading about the Oasis spilt it got me thinking about the possible stress and added problems that arise when you work with family members.
Noel Gallagher has said intolerable "violent and verbal intimidation" and a "lack of support" from management and bandmates forced him to quit Oasis the BBC reported.
In a statement, on his blog at Oasisinet.com, he said: "The details are not important and of too great a number to list."
He went on to thank fans after his decision to leave Oasis brought an "amazing" 18 years to an end.
Noel left after relations with brother and band mate Liam hit an all-time low.
Oasis was named the UK’s most successful act of the 1990's by the Guinness Book of World Records and right up to this day have a huge following.
It’s sad and I know that I would have liked to see them continue as they are an amazing group of musicians; I’ve seen them live only once but grew up blasting their music. Obviously the inns and outs will never fully be public and it seems there wasn’t one incident that resulted in the split but the much publicised feuding Gallagher brothers seem to no longer be able to work together.
It’s a shame and unlikely that they are going to be close again according to the media but the question is, is it just too much pressure to work with family?
I honestly don’t know having never really been in that situation but I do know that it’s hard to be with any family member for long periods of time and can imagine that in the music industry that problem is magnified ten fold with long periods of time being spent travelling, touring or being trapped in studios.
Whilst doing some research online I read an article about an American woman who worked with her husband and described the trials and tribulations they had encountered as partners in their family firm. I know that it’s slightly different working with a spouse and a sibling but all the same boundaries and issues can arise in the workplace when you have someone who is close to you personally working along side you.
First and foremost, each family member must have clearly defined roles so that there is never room for blaming the other for not doing something. Respect and professionalism are also very important when at work as although in the house shouting or moaning about something not being done may be common practice – in a workplace with other colleagues it can frustrate or belittle the other person and blow up a tiny disagreement into a feud like the Oasis spilt has become.
This would mean, if you have a meeting with one another, show up. If you have a deadline or target, then deliver and that should alleviate some of the pressure. Also important, be prepared to deal with the consequences of not delivering and on the other side of things, be prepared to follow the same procedures with family members as you would if another employee did the same thing.
I think most importantly there do have to be boundaries where a decision is made not to talk about work when you are not there as if lines of communication become tangled then it’s hard to recover as the Gallagher brother’s situation has shown.
Does anyone out there have their own opinion or experience they can share?
Noel Gallagher has said intolerable "violent and verbal intimidation" and a "lack of support" from management and bandmates forced him to quit Oasis the BBC reported.
In a statement, on his blog at Oasisinet.com, he said: "The details are not important and of too great a number to list."
He went on to thank fans after his decision to leave Oasis brought an "amazing" 18 years to an end.
Noel left after relations with brother and band mate Liam hit an all-time low.
Oasis was named the UK’s most successful act of the 1990's by the Guinness Book of World Records and right up to this day have a huge following.
It’s sad and I know that I would have liked to see them continue as they are an amazing group of musicians; I’ve seen them live only once but grew up blasting their music. Obviously the inns and outs will never fully be public and it seems there wasn’t one incident that resulted in the split but the much publicised feuding Gallagher brothers seem to no longer be able to work together.
It’s a shame and unlikely that they are going to be close again according to the media but the question is, is it just too much pressure to work with family?
I honestly don’t know having never really been in that situation but I do know that it’s hard to be with any family member for long periods of time and can imagine that in the music industry that problem is magnified ten fold with long periods of time being spent travelling, touring or being trapped in studios.
Whilst doing some research online I read an article about an American woman who worked with her husband and described the trials and tribulations they had encountered as partners in their family firm. I know that it’s slightly different working with a spouse and a sibling but all the same boundaries and issues can arise in the workplace when you have someone who is close to you personally working along side you.
First and foremost, each family member must have clearly defined roles so that there is never room for blaming the other for not doing something. Respect and professionalism are also very important when at work as although in the house shouting or moaning about something not being done may be common practice – in a workplace with other colleagues it can frustrate or belittle the other person and blow up a tiny disagreement into a feud like the Oasis spilt has become.
This would mean, if you have a meeting with one another, show up. If you have a deadline or target, then deliver and that should alleviate some of the pressure. Also important, be prepared to deal with the consequences of not delivering and on the other side of things, be prepared to follow the same procedures with family members as you would if another employee did the same thing.
I think most importantly there do have to be boundaries where a decision is made not to talk about work when you are not there as if lines of communication become tangled then it’s hard to recover as the Gallagher brother’s situation has shown.
Does anyone out there have their own opinion or experience they can share?
Wednesday, 2 September 2009
Celebrity Fronted Social Worker Recruitment Drive for 5000 Jobs
A TV campaign is being launched to try to recruit more than 5,000 social workers, amid fears the ‘Baby P’ case has turned people off the profession, the BBC reported.
Launching the appeal, actress Samantha Morton spoke of the "wonderful" social workers who supported her as a child. Fashion designer Sadie Frost, former Eastenders star Michelle Ryan and musician Goldie are also among those appearing in the adverts.
Children's Secretary Ed Balls said social workers "transform lives".
"Thousands of children and families desperately need the help and support social workers give in difficult and sometimes dangerous situations. It is a job that makes a difference in ways that most of us can only begin to imagine," he said, adding that its success stories were "rarely heard".
‘The Help Give Them A Voice’ campaign aims to attract back social workers who may have left the profession and people looking for a career change, as well as people making initial career choices.
Emilia Fox, another actress supporting the campaign, said: "I think we have got to a really critical situation so this is really to encourage people into a profession with responsibility."
In May, a survey for the Local Government Association (LGA) suggested the criticism of the profession following the ‘Baby P’ case had had a "highly damaging effect" on the ability of local councils in England to recruit social workers.
It found 60% of the 56 councils taking part in the study had experienced problems hiring children's social workers and 40% reported difficulties in retaining experienced staff.
Although this story appears positive and will probably prove to be a successful ‘recruitment drive’, is it really the right way to recruit staff that I’m sure everyone will agree play a pivotal role in society today for many people? It is a job with great responsibility and requires a certain type of person – caring and trustworthy are just two of the vital requirements of someone who would be successful in this career.
Am I being too analytical and pernickety to suggest that this is a waste of time and may attract the wrong type of people? I view this type of profession as one that people are born with the character to do or not, a vocation that no matter what training and skills can be provided to people, they may not be able to cope or do the job competently as it’s a lot more than a nine till five.
The same as a priest or nurse may feel that their profession was their calling; it’s a job that requires a similar nature and commitment to a cause. A lot of amazing social workers exist out there and as reported many have left due to the work conditions and treatment they received. Does it not make sense then to improve on these conditions instead of attracting masses of people, many of whom may be wholly unsuitable?
I understand there is a shortage of staff and they need to take action to ensure these positions are filled but does a celebrity endorsed recruitment drive really reflect the seriousness of the job? Is it really appropriate, no matter what the experiences of these celebrities have been? It is the ordinary ‘Joe Public’ that these people need to help and I just don’t think it’s a great way to recruit these important people. I feel a more targeted campaign if any and internal improvements to the departments makes a lot more sense.
I could be wrong, what are your thoughts?
Launching the appeal, actress Samantha Morton spoke of the "wonderful" social workers who supported her as a child. Fashion designer Sadie Frost, former Eastenders star Michelle Ryan and musician Goldie are also among those appearing in the adverts.
Children's Secretary Ed Balls said social workers "transform lives".
"Thousands of children and families desperately need the help and support social workers give in difficult and sometimes dangerous situations. It is a job that makes a difference in ways that most of us can only begin to imagine," he said, adding that its success stories were "rarely heard".
‘The Help Give Them A Voice’ campaign aims to attract back social workers who may have left the profession and people looking for a career change, as well as people making initial career choices.
Emilia Fox, another actress supporting the campaign, said: "I think we have got to a really critical situation so this is really to encourage people into a profession with responsibility."
In May, a survey for the Local Government Association (LGA) suggested the criticism of the profession following the ‘Baby P’ case had had a "highly damaging effect" on the ability of local councils in England to recruit social workers.
It found 60% of the 56 councils taking part in the study had experienced problems hiring children's social workers and 40% reported difficulties in retaining experienced staff.
Although this story appears positive and will probably prove to be a successful ‘recruitment drive’, is it really the right way to recruit staff that I’m sure everyone will agree play a pivotal role in society today for many people? It is a job with great responsibility and requires a certain type of person – caring and trustworthy are just two of the vital requirements of someone who would be successful in this career.
Am I being too analytical and pernickety to suggest that this is a waste of time and may attract the wrong type of people? I view this type of profession as one that people are born with the character to do or not, a vocation that no matter what training and skills can be provided to people, they may not be able to cope or do the job competently as it’s a lot more than a nine till five.
The same as a priest or nurse may feel that their profession was their calling; it’s a job that requires a similar nature and commitment to a cause. A lot of amazing social workers exist out there and as reported many have left due to the work conditions and treatment they received. Does it not make sense then to improve on these conditions instead of attracting masses of people, many of whom may be wholly unsuitable?
I understand there is a shortage of staff and they need to take action to ensure these positions are filled but does a celebrity endorsed recruitment drive really reflect the seriousness of the job? Is it really appropriate, no matter what the experiences of these celebrities have been? It is the ordinary ‘Joe Public’ that these people need to help and I just don’t think it’s a great way to recruit these important people. I feel a more targeted campaign if any and internal improvements to the departments makes a lot more sense.
I could be wrong, what are your thoughts?
Friday, 28 August 2009
BIG BROTHER’S BEEN BAD?
The media online and offline has been reporting of the decision for next year’s Big Brother to be the last. Davina herself has even mentioned it on her Twitter site and George Lamb on the spin-off show Big Brother’s Little Brother made an official statement that Channel 4 would review its decision after next year’s show.
There has been a lot of hype and speculation for the last couple of years and it seems a little exaggerated in my opinion – with comments like the ratings have suffered, the show isn’t as good as it used to be and hearsay about voting fixes, but does it all really matter? Whether true or not, all good shows come to an end and have a shelf life so it’s nothing new.
I like Big Brother and remember watching the first series religiously but now as BB10 is coming to an end I do think it’s getting less about the viewers’ opinions and more about Channel Four’s own agenda. BB10 Lisa is a prime example of this, she’s been sneaky, bitchy and a complete pain throughout and the only week that viewer’s had a chance to vote her out, Big Brother changed the way to evict, to voting on who you want to stay – perfectly engineered to get the ‘quiet one’ Hira out who seemed to have more going for her than anyone else in there.
Poor Halfwit/Freddie was also a victim of this year’s show as manipulative Bea played with his feelings which led to his downfall – if the public had the chance to get her out sooner then possibly Halfwit’s stay could have been a little longer.
All that aside there have been great shows and lots to talk about over the last ten series and I think it’s the right time to end it before it gets remembered for the rebellious behaviour of it’s participants and the unauthoritative nature of BB that has unfolded gradually and peaked this year.
If it is all coming to an end next year then I hope Big Brother does what many shows have before and make the final season one to remember.
There has been a lot of hype and speculation for the last couple of years and it seems a little exaggerated in my opinion – with comments like the ratings have suffered, the show isn’t as good as it used to be and hearsay about voting fixes, but does it all really matter? Whether true or not, all good shows come to an end and have a shelf life so it’s nothing new.
I like Big Brother and remember watching the first series religiously but now as BB10 is coming to an end I do think it’s getting less about the viewers’ opinions and more about Channel Four’s own agenda. BB10 Lisa is a prime example of this, she’s been sneaky, bitchy and a complete pain throughout and the only week that viewer’s had a chance to vote her out, Big Brother changed the way to evict, to voting on who you want to stay – perfectly engineered to get the ‘quiet one’ Hira out who seemed to have more going for her than anyone else in there.
Poor Halfwit/Freddie was also a victim of this year’s show as manipulative Bea played with his feelings which led to his downfall – if the public had the chance to get her out sooner then possibly Halfwit’s stay could have been a little longer.
All that aside there have been great shows and lots to talk about over the last ten series and I think it’s the right time to end it before it gets remembered for the rebellious behaviour of it’s participants and the unauthoritative nature of BB that has unfolded gradually and peaked this year.
If it is all coming to an end next year then I hope Big Brother does what many shows have before and make the final season one to remember.
Tuesday, 25 August 2009
"I'm suing Google..."
The Times online reported that Google is to be sued for $15 million (approx £9 million) by a not-so-anonymous blogger who was unmasked by the internet search company.
Rosemary Port said that Google had failed to protect her right to privacy when the company obeyed a court order to reveal her name after she used her blog to accuse a former Vogue model of being a "psychotic, lying, whoring ... skank".
Liskula Cohen, 36, won a landmark case in a New York court last week, forcing Google to disclose the online identity of Ms Port, 29, a Fashion Institute of Technology student, who created her "Skanks in NYC" blog a year ago using Google's Blogger.com site.
The New York Supreme Court ruled that Google must reveal the identity of the blogger.
Judge Joan Madden rejected Ms Port's claim that the blogs were a "modern-day forum for conveying personal opinions, including invective and ranting" and should not be treated as factual assertions.
After the court ruling Google turned over the e-mail address and IP addresses from each time the blogger had logged on to the blog, allowing Ms Cohen to discover the identity of her tormentor.
She said she was relieved to discover that the woman who created the blog was not someone close to her and decided not to continue with a defamation suit. The blog was deleted in March.
Google said that users of Blogger.com agree to a privacy policy that allows the company to share personal information if required by legal action.
Firstly, is it me or are the lawsuits getting crazier by the week across the pond? Okay, I know that people will be flying the freedom of speech flag in support of this nasty coward – I have read the comments online already.
That’s a good flag to fly – but not in this instance! Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if that opinion is defamatory and expressed to an audience (in print or by word), why shouldn't the person making the statement be liable for it? All this decision does is stop Ms Port hiding behind a wall of anonymity.
If Ms Port's comments aren’t defamatory, then she has nothing to worry about. Insulting people or holding a public opinion is not automatically defamatory. Her right to free speech is not infringed in any way.
Problem is, what she wants is freedom to abuse/insult/possibly defame people, in a manner designed to bring them anguish and degradation, in a highly public manner, anonymously. It's the fact that she is embarrassed and concerned that she has been outed that has angered her – not the fact that Google revealed her details – as a result of a court order I must add. Somewhat hypocritical to say the least.
That is not what free speech is about - free speech is the right to say what you want to say, not the right to be unaccountable for your vicious tongue. People should be responsible and accountable for their words and actions - that's part of enjoying these freedoms.
Please tell me this lawsuit will be dropped before it wastes any time or money in court. Someone should also try to contact the victim here - the model that has been called what can only be described as childish names and tell her to take a u-turn and sue Ms Port – not for cash, just for the principle and teach the nasty creature a lesson.
Rosemary Port said that Google had failed to protect her right to privacy when the company obeyed a court order to reveal her name after she used her blog to accuse a former Vogue model of being a "psychotic, lying, whoring ... skank".
Liskula Cohen, 36, won a landmark case in a New York court last week, forcing Google to disclose the online identity of Ms Port, 29, a Fashion Institute of Technology student, who created her "Skanks in NYC" blog a year ago using Google's Blogger.com site.
The New York Supreme Court ruled that Google must reveal the identity of the blogger.
Judge Joan Madden rejected Ms Port's claim that the blogs were a "modern-day forum for conveying personal opinions, including invective and ranting" and should not be treated as factual assertions.
After the court ruling Google turned over the e-mail address and IP addresses from each time the blogger had logged on to the blog, allowing Ms Cohen to discover the identity of her tormentor.
She said she was relieved to discover that the woman who created the blog was not someone close to her and decided not to continue with a defamation suit. The blog was deleted in March.
Google said that users of Blogger.com agree to a privacy policy that allows the company to share personal information if required by legal action.
Firstly, is it me or are the lawsuits getting crazier by the week across the pond? Okay, I know that people will be flying the freedom of speech flag in support of this nasty coward – I have read the comments online already.
That’s a good flag to fly – but not in this instance! Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if that opinion is defamatory and expressed to an audience (in print or by word), why shouldn't the person making the statement be liable for it? All this decision does is stop Ms Port hiding behind a wall of anonymity.
If Ms Port's comments aren’t defamatory, then she has nothing to worry about. Insulting people or holding a public opinion is not automatically defamatory. Her right to free speech is not infringed in any way.
Problem is, what she wants is freedom to abuse/insult/possibly defame people, in a manner designed to bring them anguish and degradation, in a highly public manner, anonymously. It's the fact that she is embarrassed and concerned that she has been outed that has angered her – not the fact that Google revealed her details – as a result of a court order I must add. Somewhat hypocritical to say the least.
That is not what free speech is about - free speech is the right to say what you want to say, not the right to be unaccountable for your vicious tongue. People should be responsible and accountable for their words and actions - that's part of enjoying these freedoms.
Please tell me this lawsuit will be dropped before it wastes any time or money in court. Someone should also try to contact the victim here - the model that has been called what can only be described as childish names and tell her to take a u-turn and sue Ms Port – not for cash, just for the principle and teach the nasty creature a lesson.
Wednesday, 19 August 2009
Are there still people who don't realise the dangers of Facebook?
I received an email from a friend with this attachment and thought that everyone had realised by now that PEOPLE CAN READ what you write online - especially when you are friends with them on Facebook.
It seems that no matter what happens with technology & communication there is still dim people out there who don’t think about their actions or how to utilise it effectively.
Before this, emailing or texting your whole address book with a personal email was a popular blunder of many and embarrassing enough but insulting your boss and your work has got to be one of the dumbest of all – especially in the current economic climate.
I can’t imagine this particular individual is going to be filling out applications and putting reason for leaving last job: “I was asked to leave for insulting my boss on Facebook”. Perhaps, prospective employers would be sympathetic if her work was s**t, as she said but I don’t think anyone wants to employ someone with such lack of common sense.
To summarise then, hate your boss, hate your work, slag your boss to close friends if it won’t get back to your boss – that is all acceptable , but don’t do it on Facebook when your friends with your boss – that’s just plain STUPID!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
