Boris' Lovechild

[Gromit]

The appeal court has rules that it it is on the public interest that details about Boris Johnson's 'secret' lovechild can be revealed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/10070055/Public-has-right-to-know-about-Boris-Johnsons-secret-lovechild-court-rules.html

Do you think that decossion is correct?

[woofgang]

I think that the overriding driver here should be to protect the privacy of the child. I think that the argument about knowing this in order to make a judgement about holding high office is a bit spurious. If someone can pull the Uk out of the financial mess we are in, (not saying that BJ could) then I wouldn't be worried about marital infidelity.

[sandyRoe]

It is because it casts light on a side of his character which he'd rather was hidden.
Didn't his predecessor in the office have a number of illigitimate children?

[woofgang]

yup
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

Secretary Maria Miller has made the following statement under section 19(1)(a) of the
Human Rights Act 1998:

In my view the provisions of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill are compatible
with the Convention rights.

[woofgang]

whoops, wrong paste
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2052637/Ken-Livingstone-5-kids-3-women-nasty-whiff-hypocrisy-.html

[ChillDoubt]

IMHO the only people who needed to know were the child herself when appropriate and his wife.

[FredPuli43]

Yes, on the facts, and for the reasons given, by the Master of the Rolls.

However, it was accepted by both sides that the adulterous affair was relevant to considering the father's fitness for public office. Agreed it may be, but I don't see any relevance in it whatsoever in considering that matter. Telling lies about an affair or the paternity could be relevant, but, given that it is assumed that the public or the man's superiors, care absurdly about adultery in judging fitness for office, even that is excusable.

[anotheoldgit]

"in the public's interest" ????????????

Well here is one member of the public, that isn't interested.

[1ndex]

wots decossion

[jake-the-peg]

These are always difficult decisions aren't they?

But we have to remember there is a degree of opinion suggesting that this man is prime minister material and a degree of opinion suggesting that his past behaviour has shown underhand behaviour unsuited to someone seeking the highest office in the land.

This adds weight to that assessment and so I can see why the public interest decision was upheld.

It's quite easy to knee jerk towards protecting the innocent and say that the child's annonymity must be paramount but we may be considering the good of the realm on the other hand and that is probably even more important than a child's annonymity - especially when she's unlikely to experience anything too attrocious from this becoming public knowledge.

Difficult decision though - glad it wasn't mine to make

[FredPuli43]

aog, I agree. " What is in the public interest" is not the same as "What the public is interested in"

[Gromit]

Sorry for the typos

[mikey4444]

Another member of the Johnson family ! ...AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH !