my vilification? what vilification on my part?
I thought you were objecting to how he was being treated just because he'd been given £75m for his hard work.
(, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 21:13, Share, Reply)
I'm objecting to a guy being vilified
for refusing to answer a question that is no one else's business.
You appear to be one of the people who thinks it's your business. Maybe you're not vilifying him.
(, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 21:24, Share, Reply)
but it isn't no one else's business, as you pointed out it would be the business of shareholders
by extension it would then also be the business of pension funds and those that they represent i.e. members of the public. So to make reasoned decisions based on the actions of a company why shouldn't a public broadcaster ask the very question that the public would? Namely, how is it justified.
(, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 21:36, Share, Reply)
and pension funds *do* vote on remuneration packages
journalist is free to ask the question, but it's no big surprise the chief executive doesn't answer. Being doorstepped is *not* designed to get a sensible answer. The best outcome for journalists is when they set the dogs on you.
(
The Ann Coulter Fan Club Babylon is burning at, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 21:40,
Share,
Reply)
If you'll look further up the thread
you'll see I've clearly made an exception for shareholders (both private individuals and managers of funds); that's already been covered. It does NOT extend to random people with pensions in those funds... they're only owed explanations from the fund managers who may ask the question on their behalf. This relationship is not transitive.
Sure, the journalist can ask the question, but it isn't reasonable to vilify the guy if he chooses not to answer it.
(, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 21:49, Share, Reply)
This is a democracy, and there is no right to privacy in the UK (There is one in ECHR, which we may be backing out of)
Just as the board can award themselves huge bonuses, a journalist can ask awkward questions if he thinks it will be of interest to the public, and we can react in whatever way we choose, including vilifying the greedy fuck.
The big game hunter had a right to shoot lions, but had to bear the public's anger for his actions. If the CEO hadn't done anything appalling, then people wouldn't be interested in the clip. You might find his bonus justified, but many people don't. You are arguing against transparency and consequences for decisions, whether private decisions or public decision. I am for it.
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Sun 21 Oct 2018, 23:34,
Share,
Reply)
So. Much. Ignorance.
There is a right to privacy in English law, it has been much in the news of late. Perhaps news of so called super injunctions passed you by. Maybe you have never heard of the Family Courts, or have any idea how they operate. Perhaps you've never read a news story concerning crime where the victim, and in some cases the perpetrator, have their identity withheld. There are many other ways in which we have privacy rights that haven't grabbed headlines. The ECHR was specifically incorporated into English law by the HRA. That was the explicitly stated primary purpose of the act.
(
Prufrock Lucifer, son of the morning!, Mon 22 Oct 2018, 8:32,
Share,
Reply)
dealing with your diatribes backwards, yes I know UK incorporated the EHCR provisions, my phrase "which we may be backing out of" obviously implies that we're still in it, if you're capable or parsing English I guess.
The EHCR is a requirement of EU membership, so my warning that we may be backing out of the HRA after brexit has some justification, and well as high profile opponents to it including the Murdoch's papers because of immigrant using it to prevent family seperations. The superinjunction derive their power from the ECHR. The landmark case which created superinjunctions PJS v News Group Newspapers was rejected then won on appeal with specific reference to the EHCR obligations. There is no British legislation that enshrines a right to privacy in the matter we were talking about as evillegion suggested there was, and other countries have, though there are some ancillary rights around property and family law. If we pull out of the ECHR as we may well do, we will go back to having nothing. And recent legislation like the snoopers charter suggests the government has little interest in developing new privacy protections. People think getting out of Europe will give us more freedoms, when it's often been the only thing protecting them
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Tue 23 Oct 2018, 6:28,
Share,
Reply)