There's an excellent editorial in today's
The Age, Saturday, November 1, 2014 in the
Forum Section on page 32. I highly recommend
it to everyone.

:It is desirable and inevitable that in a free
and open democratic society there will be
strong debate about the tendion between public
interest and the rights of the individual, and
about what the optimal balance might be..."

"...In recent days...cases have illustrated the
nuances of this trade-off between two of the most
important el;ements of any civilised community.
All ...involve the media, and so serve, too, to
illustrate the intersection and the trade-off
between public and private interests."

Two of the cases mentioned we are currently
attempting to discuss here. The Age tells us
that -

"ALP Northern Territory Senator Nova Peris, a former
Olympian faced allegations that she improperly
sought to influence the spending of public
money in 2010, before sh entered Parliament, by
misusing her position with Athletics Australia. On
the basis of leaked private emails, widely published
in mainstream media, between Peris and Trinidadian
athlete Ato Boldon, it was suggested that an
ambassadorial trip by Boldon to Australia, financed
by Athletics Australia, was in part a front for
romantic clandestine assignation between the two
international sport stars."

"Peris and Boldon vehemently deny any wrongdoing, a
position buttressed by Athletics Australia, which
decalred it was "thrilled" by Boldon's trip."

"With no other evidence to support any claim that
there was misuse of funds, we believe that puts the
case to rest."

The Age continues - "...in the example of University
of Sydney academic Barry Spurr, who also had personal
emails leaked, we believe there is a public interest
case to pursue. The emails, which the professor says
were a joke (sic), contained slurs against a range
of individuals and groups, and he has been
suspended by his university while it investigates."

cont'd ...

cont'd ...

"The public interest argument here is that Professor
Spurr was part of a review commissioned by the
Federal Government into the national curriculum. The
issue to determine is whether the revelations show the
Professor to be unsuitable for such a pivotal role."

"All ...cases involve leaked emails, some of them
quite probably illegally obtained. The code of ethics
of this and many other media organisations, as well as
the principles of the Australian Press Council, stipulate
that intrusions of privacy should not be published unless
there is a public interest."

"In making that assessment, the legality of the sourcing
of information is a consideration subordinate to
public interest."

"History is replete with examples of the public interest
being serviced by whistle-blowers who provided
illegally obtained information to media outlets.
That health, open debate is necessary to help determine
what can reasonably be said to meet that definition."

The Age sums up:

"The lesson for individuals is prudence. Emails written
on professional accounts are the property of the
employer. Even in the case of private accounts, caution is
advised, given the constant risk of hacking."

"In essence, never send an email you would not be
comfortable seeing on the front page of a newspaper."

Foxy
the only thing your long rant proves is that journalist (especially of the Fairfax brand) are incapable of logic. They have been trained by the same 'group think' on how to protect, diguise, deceive and deny truth.

Foxy,

Once again you have deluged the forum with lots of words. However that page 32 editorialising with its 'beliefs' is silent on a number of major issues raised by the NT News and others including the Sydney Morning Herald, such as:

- on exactly what evidence apart from the denials of the alleged beneficiaries of the claimed travel rort was the opinion (beliefs) based;

- what of Peris' claim in the Parliament that she was of the victim of an extortion attempt, "to extract money and embarrass me and my family"; and

- who paid and exactly what reporting and auditing was in place and is available for public scrutiny?

Referring to the last mentioned, as many would be aware, reporting can be very superficial and audits are most likely based on sampling (confidence based sampling) and cannot be construed as providing assurance in the case of particular claims.

Here is the NT News report (SMH link given earlier) and you should show exactly where those wads of words you posted answer the serious questions raised.

http://tinyurl.com/mkrjnml

runner,

Actually, it's not my long rant but an article
from The Age and I full understand its lack of
appeal to you.

Your logic will always get you from A to B.

otb,

I also fully understand your problem in not being
capable of processing lengthy articles. Don't
be embarrassed by this. It's quite common especially
for people of a certain age.
You should
simply not read or respond to them. So take it easy.

However The Age article
was written on a different subject.
The Age article was written
on the topic of "private versus public interests,"
and well worth reading in my opinion. Jonathan Holmes
wrote an excellent article on the same subject which
you may want to Google - just for interests sake.

In any case - it will be interesting to see what
develops as a result of both of these two cases
further down the road.

Stay tuned folks.

Foxy,

So you have nothing that answers or dispels the questions raised by the NT News and the SMH.

You might refer to the article 31 Oct,2014 by Chris Graham in the New Matilda, a source you rely on when it suits you but not now apparently.

As usual I will not be responding to your rudeness.