Talk:Mosley v United Kingdom

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

The headline by the BBC "Mosley v UK" should be understood in its cultural context that denotes a possibility but not a fact. Mootros (talk) 09:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Moves are possible during AfD. Mootros (talk) 09:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

AfD
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)
 * 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).
 * 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 |%20v%20|%20United%20|%20Kingdom&sessionid=70917357&skin=hudoc-en or here . 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)


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

Reaction (legal rather than press)
Here are some sources:
 * Solictor's Journal, "Through the Keyhole"
 * Hugh Tomlinson QC, "Case Law: Mosley v United Kingdom: pre-notification rejected by Strasbourg"
 * New Law Journal, "Mosley loses privacy battle"
 * The Lawyer, "Media lawyers in the driving seat as Mosley crashes and burns in ECHR"
 * 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)

Oh also the BAILII is here 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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Mosley v United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

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.

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