UKC

>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3465215/Married-City-lawyer-51-sex-...

Golly. I don't know what it is about Waterloo, but it does seem to lend itself to this sort of thing - another well-known lawyer in my field had a similar little problem there fifteen years ago, although it didn't really make the papers.

A good wheeze when being cautioned for public indecency, though - simply declare that you were the victim of an assault and, hey presto, anonymity. Pity Mr Stening didn't think of the same idea.

I do hope the poor woman doesn't go the way of PJS, mind, or indeed Vicky Price. I'm not sure we'll have heard the last of this.

(I know the story's a couple of months old, but Mr S was in court again today and I can't be bothered to find the link to that.)

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

It's a good thing for Google that their search servers aren't based in the U.K. put in Graeme Stening and the auto complete would have them up in front of the Beak before you could hit the carriage return key!

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Yikes!!!
I saw the article in the newspaper and it sounded odd but now I can see why.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Glad that, as usual, the Daily Wail lets me know the value of his house.

In reply to EddInaBox:

Yes. Although it's the next search that's the jaffa, of course.

I do wonder whether there wouldn't be a public interest defence, though. Not that I know anything about the relevant law, but one can see that there's a genuine interest in ensuring that the QC kitemark is attached only to the best barristers, so that the public can rely on them. If the lady in question lost her head in a crisis - drink taken, admittedly - to the extent that she accepted a caution when not only was she completely innocent but she had in fact been the victim of a crime, and then lost her memory for six weeks before reporting the crime - most unfortunate, really does create the impression that she only remembered the crime once the police decided to prosecute ol' Mr S and she realied that otherwise she'd be in the papers, which I'm sure is a most unfair construction - then one might wonder whether she's really as sharp a legal tool as one might wish to have representing one.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Total and utter disgrace.

What does surprise me is that there is a whisper of who this person is and to be honest if its true then I'm equally surprised the person in question hasn't been outed. I'll say no more.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

A few things - who is PJS, why was he being prosecuted for outraging public decency when she got a caution and how are we still maintaining a system where only one side gets anonymity?

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

I think that she accepted the caution and he didn't?

In reply to andy:

Cheers - that would make sense.

It's a funny way round though - you'd think he'd accept the caution if he did assault her and she's be the one to refuse it.

In reply to James Jackson:


Also shows how insane the increase in house prices is. 300k increase between adding the picture caption for the house and then including it in the story.

For the lawyers. What impact would a caution have on a QC?

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


Hah! Let's say he or she is a celebrity who has obtained an injunction preventing the press from reporting some pointless tittle-tattle, which the Scum is very cross about and is presently asking the Supreme Court to overturn, although I have heard the signs weren't good for them (the Scum, that is).

Why are we still maintaining a system where victims of sexual assault get anonymity but those prosecuted for it don't even if acquitted, you mean? I couldn't possibly say. It doesn't seem entirely without merit, to be fair, but the present story (if correctly reported) is not really showcasing the system in its best light.

Still, the popular assumption that the internet will probably wash the system away by itself soon enough may well be correct, I dare say.

I do wonder what would have happened if Mr S had been equally quick-witted and said that on the contrary Ms QC had been assaulting him. Presumably they'd both have got anonymity?!

jcm

In reply to KevinD:


Depends if they reported it to the Bar Council in accordance with their obligations or not.

Other scurrilous internet gossip is that this did not occur in the present case.

But in truth I doubt anything much would follow. Nothing happened to the lawyer I knew who had a similar mishap.

jcm

In reply to EddInaBox:


I shouldn't have done that. I feel sullied and unusual.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Wasn't there a case ruling that that people weren't allowed to sexually assault each other consensually, even in private, let alone outside Waterloo station?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

The internet gossip as to the identity of the QC is spectacularly entertaining.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

It sure ain't Terry meets Julie.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Well if the gossip is accurate, it's small beer compared to her husband's antics isn't it ?

In reply to lummox:

Clearly she's as keen on In as he is on Out.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

You get a point for that : )

In reply to lummox:

I'd say!

In reply to alasdair19:

You have committed a criminal offence! You need to delete that comment immediately, I shall notify the moderators but they may not be about at this sort of time.

In reply to Slarti B:

As far as I know the true identity of PJS is still the subject of an injunction and unless you know otherwise you need to delete your comment immediately or you risk getting yourself and UKC into considerable trouble.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

How come this story didn't break in the six weeks between her getting the caution and making the allegation? I'm pretty sure there's nothing wrong with the press reporting someone getting a caution is there?

In reply to Dave Garnett:


Excellent.

In reply to EddInaBox:

Oooppps thought it had been lifted but looks like subject to appeal. errrr,,, How do I delete, dont want UKC getting into trouble

In reply to Slarti B:


Too late.can't after 30 mins. Contact the mods.

In reply to Slarti B:

I think you left it too long, you only get about half an hour to delete or edit a post, you should probably use the '! Report Abuse' button at the bottom of the thread and add an explanation for the moderators for when they read the report in the morning. I suspect this whole thread will disappear given that I've already reported the first indiscretion by alasdair19.

In reply to Tyler:

I'm guessing because the police hadn't yet decided to prosecute Mr S, and only once he started appearing in court did the papers get to hear about it.

jcm

In reply to EddInaBox:

Reported myself for abuse and mods have cleared it. Thanks for warning.

In reply to EddInaBox:


What if they posted it in Scotland?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:




I can't imagine you as a Wodehouse fan.
Perhaps a closet Downton enthusiast?
Anyway...
<groan>

In reply to James Jackson:

Good point, however the poster's profile suggests not Scotland, and since UKC is available to the whole of the U.K. I doubt that would save the poster from trouble, certainly not UKC.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Wow! That had passed me by. Why wasn't there more splash about it?

The legal contortions do seem a bit inequitable.

In reply to EddInaBox:

I'm a person not a publisher.

In reply to James Jackson:


I thought the Scottish Paper(s) which named PJS only did so in print since online would get them in the shit and, unlike other online sources, they would find it harder to dodge the phone call from the courts.

In reply to alasdair19:

Legally speaking you are, and ignorance of that fact is no defence.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/11/05/ched-evans-twitter-users-fined_n...

"The defendants claimed that they were not aware that naming her was a criminal offence... The defendants were charged with publishing material likely to lead members of the public to identify the complainant in a rape case, contrary to the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act, 1992."

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

This sort of stuff annoys me. Everyone should remain anonymous until after the trial in my opinion so stuff like this doesn't happen

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3533863/Four-students-CLEARED-rapin...

Those guys were in the papers for weeks before the trial. Shouldn't happen in my opinion. Can those guys wipe this story from the internet?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

How did they hide the paddling pool full of olive oil??

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

The English courts are getting way out of hand with their war against information being disclosed. Trying to stop information about the sex lives of famous people getting disclosed on the internet is a complete waste of time and money and they should give up rather than trying to scare people into compliance.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

The courts can't just ignore laws because they are inconvenient, they are obliged to act in accordance with Statute, as laid down in Westminster. If the law is wrong or hasn't kept up with the times that isn't the fault of the court system.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Wow. What a mess for both of them. The damage control could end up being far more damaging though, as usual.

Cheers

Toby

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


I think Google will help you if you are really set on finding out. Not hard to find I understand

In reply to EddInaBox:

I don't think it is as simple as that. It's also about the judicary in London getting seduced by the trappings of power and trying to control things that are way out of their power to control. The Scottish judiciary work from pretty much the same laws but it's much more apparent to them that they can't impose their will outside a small geographic area and they've got no chance of stopping information appearing on the internet.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Your commitment to bashing England at every opportunity no matter what the subject is impressive.

Your post however is bollocks, of course - the judiciary are well aware of the fact that the internet exists. The fact that the injunction isn't a waste of time is illustrated by the fact that several people on this thread don't know who PJS is.

Just because the Scottish media can't behave themselves doesn't mean we should let the English media follow suit.

jcm

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


If only we could move the English law courts to Scotland all our problems would be solved.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


Anyone who is curious could find out into about 10 mins max. It doesnt take much googlefoo to do it. Might need a proxy now but that is still within the 11mins.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


There's a YouGov poll quoted in the Telegraph that found 56% of people know who PJS is. I presume the other 44% don't care.

At the appeal Lord Justice Jackson said ""Knowledge of the relevant matters is now so widespread that confidentiality has probably been lost," and "The court should not make orders which are ineffective." Which is pretty much the common sense position the Scottish courts took.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Indeed he did. LJJ is in general a fool, and demonstrating it on this occasion. But presumably you agree with him, and he's the highest legal authority whose views are presently known, so why are you suggesting the English courts are on a power trip?

44% don't care enough to google it, I dare say. That doesn't mean it's right there should be a lovingly detailed splash all over the Scum's front page, or that it should be on the six o'clock news. After all, anyone who wants to do a bit of work with google can discover the name of the complainant in the Ched Evans case, the Adam Johnson case, the Graeme Stening case, etc., and if the heroic Scottish media want to publish their names, they can. Nobody thinks that means we should abandon sexual assault victims being given anonymity. And moreover if the papers can't profit from this stuff they'll spend less energy trying to get it, which will be good for us all.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


I don't know, and I did idly and superficially google it. I wasn't sufficiently interested to make any further effort when the answer wasn't instantly obvious.

In reply to KevinD:


Yeah, it wouldn't take a long long time

In reply to JJL:

Definitely worth a google for entertainment value.

Wally

In reply to thread:

just googled pjs and was disappointed to find it wasn't Richard and Judy.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Unlike the Press and Journal aka Trump Times.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


Sure, I agree with him except that when 56% of people know the private information it is not 'confidentiality has probably been lost' the confidentiality is non-existent. The problem is the English courts issued the injunction in the first place, are making threats in order to enforce it even though it is blatantly ineffective and haven't removed it even though the appeal judges were pretty clear it was pointless.

So here we are pussy-footing around not saying names which we all know for no good reason except that a bunch of King Canute wannabees in robes and wigs are threatening us even though they themselves have stated the threats are pointless. I'm in Scotland and not even subject to the injunction issued by English courts but their extra-territorial ambition is still affecting my ability to speak freely on the internet.

The more serious aspect is that this is quite likely to lead to firewalls on the internet and attempts to prevent UK residents accessing non-UK based search engines in order to give courts the ability to enforce injunctions on internet content.


I'm not sure what your angle is here. It was you that posted the original message which with 3 minutes Googling lead to the names of the people having sex at Waterloo. So why post the message if keeping their confidentiality is so important. Is it OK for things to be all over the internet as long as the newspapers can't print them?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


If you stop for a moment, read what you posted, and think about it... Do you actually believe what you just wrote?????

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

as a non-UK resident (Spain), would i be able to publish their names on UKC or would i get into trouble ? presumably i'd get ukc into trouble. not that i'm thinking of doing so just curious