Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
But how the hell Claire Perry thought that was acceptable behaviour, I will never know. It's pretty obvious Guido only reported the website being hacked 'cause it's fucking hilarious, and didn't have a hand in it's hacking.
Bit worrying that she's an internet advisor, given how little she understands it.
I feel a bit sorry for the Tories. When they win the next election thanks to Miliband's crapness they'll be left with Dave and his complete inability to pick someone for their skills as opposed to that time they had a good laugh at a dinner party.
professional politicians. none of whom actuall have any expertise in any sort of area.
but when that was announced, I believed it was just a way for them to deal with a nuisance.
The terrifying side is that she appears to have been listened to.
Guido's incredibly successful at trying to be as much of a shit as possible, so fuck him but
the claire perry thing...it's not far from that US senator who kept mumbling about "the pipes are full" talking about the Internet having too much on it!
she doesn't even know how to use a computer!
so as to make it run the internet faster.
I bet she double clicks all hyperlinks.
and THEN enters something into the search bar.
And her son has to go back and move then back to their original position from the folder immediately below, into which they'd been dragged.
This is perilously close to the "LOL women can't use technology, you probably think there's a button that switches the internet off" pervasive bollocks some of us have to deal with all the time at work..
they'd get the same reaction.
It's galling that she doesn't understand the field she's working in and the whole screenshot vs hyperlink thing is all a bit the Thick of It.
But the pot shots about her probably needing to get her son to sort out her desktop for her is the sort of crap that gets levelled at women working in tech all the time and it gets wearing.
are you saying that a male counterpart as obviously unsuitable for a position wouldn't be getting ridiculed?
A different focus.
giving humourous examples of other ways in which they may not be suitable for their position seems a pretty typical focus for someone being ridiculed in such a manner, i think?
It's just easily conflated with a fairly prevalent and tedious attitude that a lot of men have, consciously or unconsciously, to women who work in technology.
But I'm probably not going to win this one. I 'm not saying you're all a massive bunch of sexists.*
there's nothing to win here though.
if it was a guy, i can't see any up there that couldn't be said without just changing it to ''he'' (He.) It's not like ''lol women can't drive cos they're too busy putting on make up'' kind of thing which does specify gender.
And the asking the son comment is surely cos often parents ask their children to help them with technology and surely all genders can have sons.
Stephen Timms took a similar pasting for this:
and all of the above I'd see easily being thrown at him.
typical man on the internet lol
having worked in IT for awhile unfortunately I've observed quite a few instances where people have given women a short shrift. I'd like to say it's changing but it still essentially seems like a bit of a boys club.
but how is it relevant to the comments marckee etc were making?
I was just sympathizing with the point moonrat made.
I think the issue here is that it's her apparent field of specialisation. But you're right, in the wide world out there I'm guessing Twitter is full of people conflating her sex with her lack of understanding, which is bullshit.
But bloody hell, a government advisor who clearly has no idea what they're talking about (which is terrifying in its own way) has just committed libel and then tried to resort to bully tactics. Insane. And yeah, Guido's not done anything wrong here...
But she really is a jumped up idiot!
you realise that the ones in charge of important stuff like health and money are just as ignorant in those fields too
does cameron or someone just shove poor claire perry into being the internet expert, or does she actually she think she knows enough about it to put herself forward for the job?
And was given her role to shut her up and placate the headbangers on the religious right of the Tory party. I don't think she was actually meant to have any power or anything, but it seems like she's been able to grab some influence. I can only imagine that it's because Cameron has been seen to be weak and susceptible to demands made by those on the right and he's had to concede yet more ground to them.
I can't imagine many ministers get a proper handle on their brief before they're moved on. Not to mention the fact that people are quite often working on things they've got no real interest in purely because they 'deserve' a job at a particular level and nothing suitable is available.
Alan Johnson as Shadow Chancellor (or in fact, George Osborne as Chancellor) was fairly out there too.
repeatedly googling 'Jim Reid fuck not health' wasn't working out for me.
Special episode of The Thick Of It where they accidentally make Jim Reid a secretary of state.
Obviously if the Sun actually stopped employing him I would but it doesn't sound likely...
not sure he's a conservative supporter though.
He'd probably describe himself as libertarian and would disagree with the Conservatives in a number of areas. He's definitely far more sympathetic to them than the other major parties though, and I'd have thought not a man that Conservatives would want to try and piss off.
He's too intelligent to consider voting for UKIP because deep down he knows they're made up of the wrong sort of reactionaries.
But he would love for us to accept that really he's 'just a libertarian' so that he is then cloaked in a pseudo-objectivity when he comments on politics. The reality is that he's passionately anti-Labour and the only time he lays into the Tories is when they do stuff that's obviously utterly bullshit.
But I can't imagine many people actually pay attention to his actual or professed political views anyway.
Either he's really needlessly defensive, or he's just trolling.
Both mark him out as a cunt.
It's what he does for a living.
he's trolling and i look forward to further dramaz
being sued for libelling someone because they don't understand how the internet works
is pretty, pretty funny
even if it is by sodding guido
Perry has absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose by dragging it to court
I said 'to me' though - I'm more committed to taking easy money from incompetent Tory MPs than to trolling
That said, Guido may indeed have the desire and the means to go the distance legally but I doubt it
in regard to internet censorship/incompetance is a good thing right?
but does he have a case? she more or less straightforwardly accused him of being behind the hacking, right?
I think you really need to be properly defamed before you should be considering a court case. Just as the Police will hand out cautions rather than bothering to arrest people when they realise it's more trouble that it's worth, this is just stupid.
I don't really have a lot of time for high profile people who are clearly exonerated from taking libel cases out. It so often smacks of their own mean spiritedness more than anything else.
plus, the more it gets retweeted, the more damaging (and this, potentially costly) the defamation becomes. Every time that page/tweet is loaded up, counts as a fresh publication and thus a fresh libel.
admittedly hysterical in this case obvs...
which may have been updated in the interim. but im pretty sure that's the gist of it.
also, the burden of proof is on the defendant in libel cases. So she would have to prove that Guido did hack the website. Guido doesn't have to show anything.
that they've damaged your reputation?
Guido's reputation is of being a nasty, publicity-seeking troll.
would LOVE to believe this is the sort of thing Guido would do though
but 'criminal' / 'hacker' is a pretty significant step worse than just 'bellend', right?
is based around the blog he publishes on the internet - more or less all his appearances elsewhere that he's paid for come from that.
Those who use Twitter are, by and large, going to know more about this than her. You're looking for a group of people using Twitter, as un-savvy of computers as Perry, and whose opinion of Guido sunk lower. I'm guessing that's a statistically insignificant number of people.
Is that necessarily true?
Hmm. I don't know. Maybe you're right.
But not as a hacker or sponsor of hackers - she is fairly explicitly accusing him of breaking the law and threatening him with going to his employers etc
Not really defensible at all
I realise the law doesn't give a shit, but equally I'm not sure it should have to. I'd say it should be down to people who consider using the law to decide if it's appropriate.
forget that it's Guido for a moment and imagine any journalist reporting on a news item to immediately have the subject of that news item publicly accuse & threaten them and their livelihood
that's what defamation laws are designed to deter ... surely?
I'm not saying it's not defamation in a legal sense. I'm asking you whether you think in this very specific instance that anyone who works with Guido took this seriously? Whether anyone who is a reader of his site was left with the belief that Claire Perry was right?
Defamation laws are there to get recompense for individuals when they are defamed. My point is that the law can't really make a good judgement on its own as to whether that has happened. No defamation is in a bubble or shorn of context.
Legally, I'm sure he deserves compensation. In reality I'm not sure any actual defamation will have occurred. As I said above, I would expect this sort of proceeding is needed when there is a clear case of 'the truth' needing to come out, of someone being badly hit by scurrilous lies or the case of the small individual against the large organisation.
which is why the laws (in defamation's case, centuries old) need to be updated swiftly with regards to teh internet. I went to a q&a session with Keir Starmer last year and though he was talking about hate-posts trolling, it's the same kinda gist. Laws are too archaic now to fit the current society.
justice is blind Theo
I don't give a fuck about Guido or what anyone thinks of him but this is clear defamation by the legal clarification laid out by Verbal below and as reinforced by colinzealuk here
It isn't an algorithm.
it's whether anyone who is a reader of *Claire Perry's tweets* was left with the belief that Claire Perry was right
'it was a joke' / 'i didn't mean it' isn't a defence.
I'm not disputing that it's defamation in law. I'm questioning the actual impact, something the law can't really account for, although I assume a court case can attempt to.
I'm saying I don't really believe Guido would need to take this case out and that to do so isn't really the act of a man sorely defamed, but a man using the law to score points.
it looks more like a man using the law to remind members of Parliament that they are not by their position above the law and cannot go about pointing fiery fingers or wagging fiery tongues
Given how preposterous her tweets were and the ridicule she's faced as a result of them, I doubt that anyone has taken them seriously.
It would seem some Westminster Village idiots give some truck to her views in general (as mad as that sounds) - don't see why this should be any different to her other nonsense
in this case I would think they could.
(a) The statement is defamatory
(b) It has been 'published' to a third party
(c) That a particular identified person has been defamed.
b and c are pretty straightforward. A is a fucker though. The idea is that all these three things must be satisfied for something to be considered libellous. A jury will be be told before sitting that a statement is considered to be defamatory if it 'tends' to (ie can be read as such even if accidental) lower the claimant's reputation in any (not all) of the following ways:
1) Exposes them to hatred, ridicule or contempt
(2) Causes them to be shunned or avoided
(3) Discredits them in their trade, business or profession
(4) Generally lowers them in the eyes of right-thinking members of society
can see that being covered here too, tbh.
and he's been accused of being involved with hacking. If that doesn't meet criteria 3, I'm not sure what would do.
my post was just a little dig at Guido/trolls who don't think that they live in the gutter too.
but still, if people are going to bandy about libel and defamation and that, thought it might be worth showing what it actually constitutes.
Clearly 1) (3) applies here
That's twitter now, isn't it.
The first, Jason Donovan vs Face magazine. Face said that Donovan was gay, a claim he denied. He sued and won - not because it's defamatory to call someone gay, but because by calling him gay even though he denied it, Face was implying he was a liar, and it is damaging to his reputation to say someone is dishonest and misleading their fans. (However, despite winning the case, him suing was seen as homophobic, and his career promptly tailed off).
The other one I was told about but can find no evidence for, but I'll repeat it anyway - a magazine called Cilla Black a cunt, and she tried to sue for defamation but failed - it couldn't be proved that this magazine calling her a cunt had actually damaged her reputation, so, you are free to call people cunts. (May be apocryphal).
I'm not sure if it killed his career or it was the same time as his career was dying, though.
That trailed an article on 'mean TV'