Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, Nsw, 12 Sept 2014 - #34

[SouthAussie]

Spedding v Nationwide News Pty Ltd - NSW Caselaw

Spedding v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 844

I looked around last night, and I can only find one article from March 2015 from The Daily Telegraph now (not two as the case law is stating). No photo of Spedding next to his work van with the 'S' missing in that article. So, perhaps that article has been taken down until the court case is resolved.
Spedding still features in the remaining article. Spedding even commented to a DT journo in the article.

The missing 'S' photo is still locatable on Google, of course. Good luck trying to get that removed from Google.

What I find interesting in this defamation case is that he is up in arms about that photo. Yet there are countless detailed articles - by all kinds of media outlets - out there about the historical charges, both in NSW and in Victoria.

He was arrested on the historical child sex charges during April 2015, less than one month after The Daily Telegraph articles in question were published.
The grandchildren were removed by FACS from his home after an investigation into his 'treatment of children' before the articles in question were published.

Makes me wonder how any court case will go if those little details are allowed to be shown to a jury.

 

[Cagney&Lacey]

Spedding v Nationwide News Pty Ltd - NSW Caselaw

Spedding v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 844

I found this interesting .....
I'm interpreting it as saying "so what if we inferred BS is a Peddo by posting a pic of BS beside his van with PEDDO emblazoned across the front. Being a pedofile isn't a criminal offence. Acting upon it is."
Now that's clever!

. Paedophilia, in itself, is better understood as a state of mind of a person, being the state of mind of having a sexual interest in young children. It does not translate into a criminal offence unless and until a person acts on that state of mind, for example, in respect of a particular child or by internet activity prohibited under the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).

 

[Cagney&Lacey]

There is a really good interview by Chris Smith of 2GB and Gary Hubelin on day 1 of this latest search.
I'm not sure if that radio show is classed as MSM so I haven't provided link. I can do so if it's allowable.

 

[SouthAussie]

There is a really good interview by Chris Smith of 2GB and Gary Hubelin on day 1 of this latest search.
I'm not sure if that radio show is classed as MSM so I haven't provided link. I can do so if it's allowable.

Public radio stations are MSM. We were allowed to provide the link of Sarah being interviewed by the radio station in the Ristevski case.

It is podcasts that are dicey territory.

Though, I am speaking as person who didn't realise that I shouldn't post a google pic of a neighbour's house. After all these years, what do I know?! Oops.

(Though I know we posted tons of pics and real estate links about the house across the road, so I am not quite sure about that rule and will have to clarify if there is a need in the future.)

 

[SouthAussie]

I found this interesting .....
I'm interpreting it as saying "so what if we inferred BS is a Peddo by posting a pic of BS beside his van with PEDDO emblazoned across the front. Being a pedofile isn't a criminal offence. Acting upon it is."
Now that's clever!

. Paedophilia, in itself, is better understood as a state of mind of a person, being the state of mind of having a sexual interest in young children. It does not translate into a criminal offence unless and until a person acts on that state of mind, for example, in respect of a particular child or by internet activity prohibited under the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).

Yes, and teamed with item 13, I can see why the judge said care must be taken with the principles and precedents that are applied.

Sort of like, just because someone else said you play softball and we published a pic of you next to your softball glove, does not mean that we are publishing to the world that you are a sportsperson. (Bad analogy, in this regard, but you get my drift.)

 

[iailwa]

Daily Telegraph denies digitally altering image of van pictured in child abduction article - Mumbrella

I found this interesting article re BS v's the telegraph (not familiar with the source's reliability) but it does show photos of BS's van. The daily telegraph denies the pictures were altered in any way for the article. Surely they must present a raw file format? Pretty hard to change a raw file. Seems a faint S has been removed - could be by hand, rather than digitally?

 

[sosocurious]

I looked around last night, and I can only find one article from March 2015 from The Daily Telegraph now (not two as the case law is stating). No photo of Spedding next to his work van with the 'S' missing in that article. So, perhaps that article has been taken down until the court case is resolved.
Spedding still features in the remaining article. Spedding even commented to a DT journo in the article.

The missing 'S' photo is still locatable on Google, of course. Good luck trying to get that removed from Google.

What I find interesting in this defamation case is that he is up in arms about that photo. Yet there are countless detailed articles - by all kinds of media outlets - out there about the historical charges, both in NSW and in Victoria.

He was arrested on the historical child sex charges during April 2015, less than one month after The Daily Telegraph articles in question were published.
The grandchildren were removed by FACS from his home after an investigation into his 'treatment of children' before the articles in question were published.

Makes me wonder how any court case will go if those little details are allowed to be shown to a jury.

Just a month after the S went missing.

Youngberry says. “Anyway,” he advises, “you blokes should go and talk to Bill.” And so we do........
He confirms that he has engaged lawyers and is considering legal action against some media outlets for their coverage. But mostly, he politely bats away our questions with a “no comment”. When asked if there is anything he’d like to add, he says: “Well, I am not guilty, of course. I was never there on the day.”

Nocookies
How could toddler William Tyrrell simply vanish into thin air?
April 18, 2015

Senior writers Dan Box and Greg Bearup took out the feature writer of the year award for joint articles on William Tyrrell and the .............. for The Weekend Australian Magazine.

Wonder what article that was?

Australian scoops News awards
Nocookies

 

[SouthAussie]

Daily Telegraph denies digitally altering image of van pictured in child abduction article - Mumbrella

I found this interesting article re BS v's the telegraph (not familiar with the source's reliability) but it does show photos of BS's van. The daily telegraph denies the pictures were altered in any way for the article. Surely they must present a raw file format? Pretty hard to change a raw file. Seems a faint S has been removed - could be by hand, rather than digitally?

Hahaha .... the DT found a legitimate way to put the pic out there ... again.

The case law suggests nothing about them removing the 'S'. There was no accusation by Spedding's lawyer of that. Just some random public person spouting off ....

Mumbrella raised the question with News Corp after a Telegraph reader emailed to suggest the image had been deliberately altered to remove the S. However, it appears that the letter had already been peeled off the van, leaving only the faint residue.

 

[SouthAussie]

Just a month after the S went missing.

Youngberry says. “Anyway,” he advises, “you blokes should go and talk to Bill.” And so we do........
He confirms that he has engaged lawyers and is considering legal action against some media outlets for their coverage. But mostly, he politely bats away our questions with a “no comment”. When asked if there is anything he’d like to add, he says: “Well, I am not guilty, of course. I was never there on the day.”

Nocookies
How could toddler William Tyrrell simply vanish into thin air?
April 18, 2015

Senior writers Dan Box and Greg Bearup took out the feature writer of the year award for joint articles on William Tyrrell and the .............. for The Weekend Australian Magazine.

Wonder what article that was?

Australian scoops News awards
Nocookies

I think it was that long article that I really like ..... where Jubelin is walking the street with them, etc. And they are pondering on what happened to William. It is a great, well-written, balanced article.



You drive over the Camden Haven River and into the old logging village of Kendall. It’s a bright spring morning with mist lolling in the valleys at the base of a looming, rugged hinterland.

There are hardly any other cars on the roads; the kids are at school and the tradies have hooned-off in their utes hours before to building sites around Port Macquarie, 30km away.

Nocookies
Greg Bearup and Dan Box
The Australian April 18, 2015

 

[sosocurious]

I found this interesting .....
I'm interpreting it as saying "so what if we inferred BS is a Peddo by posting a pic of BS beside his van with PEDDO emblazoned across the front. Being a pedofile isn't a criminal offence. Acting upon it is."
Now that's clever!

. Paedophilia, in itself, is better understood as a state of mind of a person, being the state of mind of having a sexual interest in young children. It does not translate into a criminal offence unless and until a person acts on that state of mind, for example, in respect of a particular child or by internet activity prohibited under the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).

Yes that is what I thought. You are not a pedo until you have been convicted of being one.
Anyway's why didn't BS get the S fixed?

 

[JLZ]

Daily Telegraph denies digitally altering image of van pictured in child abduction article - Mumbrella

I found this interesting article re BS v's the telegraph (not familiar with the source's reliability) but it does show photos of BS's van. The daily telegraph denies the pictures were altered in any way for the article. Surely they must present a raw file format? Pretty hard to change a raw file. Seems a faint S has been removed - could be by hand, rather than digitally?

There's no indication in the judgment that Spedding alleges the photographs were altered. According to the article that's the subject of defamatory action, he was asked why he didn't repair the lettering and chose not to answer.

Does anyone know how long the S was missing? Had he been happily driving around in a van which implied that he was a pedophile not long after being connected--innocently, if anyone likes--with William's disappearance; and yet felt defamed when a newspaper broadcast the same implication?

 

[TootsieFootsie]

I found a story by Greg Bearup on William.

Nocookies

 

[SouthAussie]

Yes that is what I thought. You are not a pedo until you have been convicted of being one.
Anyway's why didn't BS get the S fixed?

OMG don't ask that question, soso. Apparently, he doesn't like it.

 

[SouthAussie]

I found a story by Greg Bearup on William.

Nocookies

Can't open the Nocookies link, Tootsie. But I think it is the one I edited into my above post .... great article. I think we all recognised that when we first read it.


How could toddler William Tyrrell simply vanish into thin air?
Greg Bearup and Dan Box
The Australian April 18, 2015

 

[iailwa]

Hahaha .... the DT found a legitimate way to put the pic out there ... again.

The case law suggests nothing about them removing the 'S'. There was no accusation by Spedding's lawyer of that. Just some random public person spouting off ....
Mumbrella raised the question with News Corp after a Telegraph reader emailed to suggest the image had been deliberately altered to remove the S. However, it appears that the letter had already been peeled off the van, leaving only the faint residue.

haha true? I'm not sure exactly what the case is - I'm just imagining it is defamation? Interesting in two of those pictures you can't see the faint "s", and then in one other you can -- & BS is wearing the same clothes. There was some pretty good comments regarding how this could happen in print media tho - below the article

My eyesight is pretty bad - apparently lol

here it is if anyone wants to see the pictures

Daily Telegraph denies digitally altering image of van pictured in child abduction article - Mumbrella

 

[JLZ]

haha true? I'm not sure exactly what the case is - I'm just imagining it is defamation? Interesting in two of those pictures you can't see the faint "s", and then in one other you can -- & BS is wearing the same clothes. There was some pretty good comments regarding how this could happen in print media tho - below the article

My eyesight is pretty bad - apparently lol

here it is if anyone wants to see the pictures

Daily Telegraph denies digitally altering image of van pictured in child abduction article - Mumbrella

Click the link, Iailwa (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/5b174043e4b087b8baa89a5d)
there's an ex tempore judgment to the effect that elements of a defamation claim are to go to trial.

 

[TootsieFootsie]

Oh sorry, I thought it was a different story as it was dated September 2014, earlier than the April 2015 one.

Weird how it posts as No Cookies, I tried to fix it but it didn't work. It opens fine for me but I hate those links that don't show the proper URL.

Tried to remove the post, is there a way to do that?

Can't open the Nocookies link, Tootsie. But I think it is the one I edited into my above post .... great article. I think we all recognised that when we first read it.

 

[sosocurious]

There is a really good interview by Chris Smith of 2GB and Gary Hubelin on day 1 of this latest search.
I'm not sure if that radio show is classed as MSM so I haven't provided link. I can do so if it's allowable.

I linked it a page or 2 back. It is a good interview.

 

[iailwa]

Yes that is what I thought. You are not a pedo until you have been convicted of being one.
Anyway's why didn't BS get the S fixed?

BBM above.

So bizarre. Did he leave it there out of spite? If so, it seems to have chopped off his nose. Any theories as to why he didn't/wouldn't remove it anyone?

 

[sosocurious]

BBM above.

So bizarre. Did he leave it there out of spite? If so, it seems to have chopped off his nose. Any theories as to why he didn't/wouldn't remove it anyone?

It was removed, by who? BS is peeved that a photo was snapped of him next to the missing S.
No fuss about the missing E in hire, though. Which is also in the pic.