Jump to content

Talk:Mosley v United Kingdom

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Move

[edit]

The title was changed as there is not such court case (yet). Only an application.

The headline by the BBC "Mosley v UK"[1] should be understood in its cultural context that denotes a possibility but not a fact. Mootros (talk) 09:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute this change in title, especially during an AfD discussion. Furthermore, the title you have changed it to is certainly not in alignment with WP:TITLE. SilverserenC 09:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moves are possible during AfD. Mootros (talk) 09:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I never said they weren't, but it is in very bad faith to do so during an AfD, especially when it appears that consensus is to keep the article as it was. SilverserenC 09:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, because we are keeping the article by the looks of it. So the title should reflect the matter. Remember we are working with sources here in Wikipedia and that's what the sources say: i.e. an application. Mootros (talk) 10:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mosley_v_United_Kingdom

Move

[edit]

Since this is now pretty indisputably a legal case known as 'Mosley v United Kingdom' (unreported; 10/05/2011) I'm moving it back. Seems pretty uncontroversial to me. Regards, Bob House 884 (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you haven't done this as yet. I wouldn't just yet without a source to back it up. It isn't uncontroversial as evidenced by the above discussion. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I'm waiting for a CSD - it was controversial when the discussion was held because using the legal case as a title seemed premature for what was, at that stage, just an application. A decision has now been given by the ECtHR which you can be found here [2] or here [3]. Admittedly a lot of newspapers aren't directly referring to the case by this name but I don't think we could call it 'Max Mosley's legal challenge' or anything like that and the current name isn't really accurate. Regards, Bob House 884 (talk) 22:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction (legal rather than press)

[edit]

Here are some sources:

  • [4] Solictor's Journal, "Through the Keyhole"
  • [5] Hugh Tomlinson QC, "Case Law: Mosley v United Kingdom: pre-notification rejected by Strasbourg"
  • [6] New Law Journal, "Mosley loses privacy battle"
  • [7] The Lawyer, "Media lawyers in the driving seat as Mosley crashes and burns in ECHR"
  • [8] Taylor Wessing LLP, "Lessons from Mosley v United Kingdom"

I paticularly like this quote, on the topic of privacy/free speech from Sarah Webb which kind of sums it up for me; “If Parliament’s really unhappy with the way the courts are interpreting the Human Rights Act, they’ll have to do something about it or else leave it to the judiciary, but don’t undermine them from the sidelines.”

Could be interesting to add some details of the legal reaction, I might if noone else does. Regards, Bob House 884 (talk) 13:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh also the BAILII is here [9] and supposedly Lord Neuberger has a report coming out soon which may or may not touch on this case. Bob House 884 (talk) 13:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mosley v United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mosley v United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mosley_v_United_Kingdom&oldid=1207186646"