Talk:Mosley v United Kingdom

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Europe

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Human rights Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that an image or photograph of Mosley v United Kingdom be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Move

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. Silver seren^C 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. Silver seren^C 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

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mosley_v_United_Kingdom

Move

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]

Support Agreed that now it is a full case, a name change is appropriate. Silver seren^C 23:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction (legal rather than press)

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]

External links modified

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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090331215418/http://www.coe.int/t/e/human_rights/reformeurhrsystem_e.pdf to http://www.coe.int/t/e/human_rights/reformeurhrsystem_e.pdf

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029203736/http://www.mediadefence.org/project/mosley-v-united-kingdom-prior-notification to http://www.mediadefence.org/project/mosley-v-united-kingdom-prior-notification

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]