[arista]

Originally Posted by Jack_

For the love of ****ing God, for the last time, her keeping/losing the job is the secondary issue here. My problem is with this paper thinking it is acceptable to plaster one of her Twitter photos on the front page of a national newspaper in a blatant attempt to mock her and make everyone go 'hahahaha look at the ugly bitch taking a photo in the mirror!', that is disgusting. What was wrong with a photo of her taken by the press that's being used everywhere else?

Yeah I'm not condoning the tweets but I do feel they may also have been taken out of context slightly. Using the term '********t', whilst not exactly acceptable, isn't always used as a direct gay slur...it can and is also used as a general insult. No, that doesn't make it right but there is the possibility here that the word was used in a general context and this paper have tried to make out she was being homophobic. There's nothing right about younger generations using these kind of words as insults but that isn't the fault of this girl - it's similar to people using 'gay' to describe something as bad...a lot of gay people use the same term, it's not right but does that make them homophobic?

I'm not going to say it again. My problem is that a national newspaper is trying to publicly humiliate and vilify a 17 year old girl until she breaks down. That cannot be justified. In fact what's happening here could have very damaging consequences to this girl. This is the same paper that inadvertently led a transgender woman to take her own life, and I don't think this paper will be satisfied until the same thing happens to this girl. Maybe then it'll have some ****ing decorum.

Jack she was the Fool that put it out there
Once you Tweet its forever tracked.
So You are Wrong
Public Tweets - Full Rights to publish them.

[Redway]

Originally Posted by arista

Jack she was the Fool that put it out there
Once you Tweet its forever tracked.
So You are Wrong
Public Tweets - Full Rights to publish them.

Absolute nonsense.

It is not acceptable to invade a 17-year-old's privacy and publish tweets and pictures of her without permission. It's essentially bullying and whilst what she said was wrong, what full rights to the Daily Mail have to post them all across the nation? I believe she was between 14 and 16 when she made those posts anyway, and I think it's reasonable that she wouldn't go rummaging through her her status history, some of which started three years ago.

I'd go on all day but Jack's done a fine job of expanding on what I was going to say. I refer you to the rest of them.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Redway

Absolute nonsense.

It is not acceptable to invade a 17-year-old's privacy and publish tweets and pictures of her without permission. It's essentially bullying and whilst what she said was wrong, what full rights to the Daily Mail have to post them all across the nation? I believe she was between 14 and 16 when she made those posts anyway, and I think it's reasonable that she wouldn't go rummaging through her her status history, some of which started three years ago.

I'd go on all day but Jack's done a fine job of expanding on what I was going to say. I refer you to the rest of them.

No They are Public Domain - not private.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Redway

Absolute nonsense.

It is not acceptable to invade a 17-year-old's privacy and publish tweets and pictures of her without permission. It's essentially bullying and whilst what she said was wrong, what full rights to the Daily Mail have to post them all across the nation? I believe she was between 14 and 16 when she made those posts anyway, and I think it's reasonable that she wouldn't go rummaging through her her status history, some of which started three years ago.

I'd go on all day but Jack's done a fine job of expanding on what I was going to say. I refer you to the rest of them.

If you are associated with public services your online conduct is open to scrutiny.. It's a sad fact, if you are 17 or 67 that is the case.

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

If you are associated with public services your online conduct is open to scrutiny.. It's a sad fact, if you are 17 or 67 that is the case.

Ms Brown turned 17 only a WEEK ago - before that, obviously, she was 16, so the tweets may well have been from only a few weeks ago .....

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Omah

Ms Brown turned 17 only a WEEK ago - before that, obviously, she was 16, so the tweets may well have been from only a few weeks ago .....

I'm well aware of this thankyou

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I'm well aware of this thankyou

Glad to hear it - it seemed that the impression was that she'd been 17 for a while and that the tweets were in her past .....

[Redway]

Originally Posted by Omah

Glad to hear it - it seemed that the impression was that she'd been 17 for a while and that the tweets were in her past .....

How does that account for her posts aged 14 and 15?