Science > Psychopaths at Home, at work, and in the Garden
Grant McNee: Dangerous Cyberpath
Endymion:
Well, while I was putting this post together, Guardian posted hers . . .
--- Quote from: Press Complaints Commission --- Complainant Name:
Mr Grant McNee
Clauses Noted: 1, 3, 10
Publication: Daily Record
Complaint:
Mr Grant McNee complained to the Press Complaints Commission that an article reporting allegations made against him by various women contained inaccuracies, intruded into his private life and set out the women's admissions that, without his permission, they had looked at emails on his computer.
Resolution:
While the newspaper denied there was any breach of the Code, the complaint was resolved privately between the parties.
Date Published: 06/01/2012
--- End quote ---
Well that's pretty vague. I wonder if McNee was asked to prove his allegations. It sounds like they just took his word for it. And when it says that 'the complaint was resolved privately between the parties' did that include his victims, or just McNee and the Daily Record?
The clauses of the Press Code of Conduct referred to above are as follows:
--- Quote from: Press Complaints Commission ---1 Accuracy
i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and - where appropriate - an apology published. In cases involving the Commission, prominence should be agreed with the PCC in advance.
iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
iv) A publication must report fairly and accurately the outcome of an action for defamation to which it has been a party, unless an agreed settlement states otherwise, or an agreed statement is published.
3 *Privacy
i) Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life, home, health and correspondence, including digital communications.
ii) Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual's private life without consent. Account will be taken of the complainant's own public disclosures of information.
iii) It is unacceptable to photograph individuals in private places without their consent.
Note - Private places are public or private property where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.
10 *Clandestine devices and subterfuge
i) The press must not seek to obtain or publish material acquired by using hidden cameras or clandestine listening devices; or by intercepting private or mobile telephone calls, messages or emails; or by the unauthorised removal of documents or photographs; or by accessing digitally-held private information without consent.
{This next clause is very interesting . . .}
ii) Engaging in misrepresentation or subterfuge, including by agents or intermediaries, can generally be justified only in the public interest and then only when the material cannot be obtained by other means.
{ . . . because at the end of the list of clauses we find . . . }
The public interest
There may be exceptions to the clauses marked * where they can be demonstrated to be in the public interest.
1. The public interest includes, but is not confined to:
i) Detecting or exposing crime or serious impropriety.
ii) Protecting public health and safety.
iii) Preventing the public from being misled by an action or statement of an individual or organisation.
2. There is a public interest in freedom of expression itself.
3. Whenever the public interest is invoked, the PCC will require editors to demonstrate fully that they reasonably believed that publication, or journalistic activity undertaken with a view to publication, would be in the public interest and how, and with whom, that was established at the time.
4. The PCC will consider the extent to which material is already in the public domain, or will become so.
5. In cases involving children under 16, editors must demonstrate an exceptional public interest to over-ride the normally paramount interest of the child.
--- End quote ---
Well, surely, this information about Grant McNee is in the public interest – after all he's scammed thousands from women who trusted him – and one has to ask why this fact was not taken into consideration. It's possible that the adjudicating body lacked accurate knowledge of pathology, and that is why they found in favour of McNee, but the man has stolen thousands from those women who trusted him. If that's not a crime which it would be in the public interest to disclose, I don't know what is.
It's also possible that the adjudicating body has some pathological deviants among its members making sure they protect their own . . .
And McNee was never likely to make the material public of his own accord.
One wonders is Amber Mun was 'leaned on' so to speak.
Guardian:
--- Quote from: Endymion on January 09, 2012, 06:19:02 PM ---W
3 *Privacy
i) Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life, home, health and correspondence, including digital communications.
ii) Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual's private life without consent.
--- End quote ---
Oh yeah, there's another huge difference, in the US, we really don't have any rights to privacy to speak of.
Guardian:
In the US we don't even have to offer facts, we can just rant to our heart's content. We don't do that here, which is why I asked Sarah for proof of her claims, and she sent it to me. We specialize in offering well documented facts, but my point is that's it's legal to just talk trash in the US..facts are optional.
Like everything, has its good points, and its bad. :/
Guardian:
As Sarah said, she has a judgement against Grant Mcnee for $19,000.00
Lisa Guliani:
I met grant Mcnee on pof sometime in 2007 just after he separated from Sara. He was renting a town house in Nepean near Algonquin College in Ottawa. On our first date he picked me up by tax, we spent 7 hours together, he was nice, he told me he just got separated, all he need was somebody to love him. He even asked me to live with him 3 days in a week to see if things could work out between us. On the second date he invited me to his place, it was there I realized the guy was a player. He showed his computer room and there I noticed he was on pof talking to other women. I slept at his house but I didn’t want to sleep with him because he was very drank and he looked very confused, he kept on asking me me why I was looking at him he said “because he’s fat”. A lot strange things happened that night.. His dog kept on jumping on me then I told him I wanted to go home so he offered to put the dog in the basement. The following morning drove me home.After two days he sent me email through pof saying that I was not his type because I hurt him by allow him to put his dog in the basement. . Two days after that he deleted his profile from POf. He would phone me sometime then after a while he told me that he living with someone. I didn't hear from for a while but after 6 months he sent me a message on pof saying he never forgot about me, he was just going through a difficult time at the time and he wanted to work things out with me. I met up with him, he looked very unhappy; he told he wasn't working and that he was thinking of going back to Scotland because things were not working for him. While in Scotland he used to call quest line another service where you women by phone.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version