Why such controversy over prank?

[Something completely different]

I don't think you understand UK law at all.

The Leveson Inquiry concluded that there should be an independent regulator of the press. It did not enact one, nor does it have the power to enact one.

Even if it did, a UK regulator of the press can only affect press working in the UK. It cannot stop, nor can it charge two Australian DJs.

As Shell said, this is an international matter. You can't apply UK laws to Australia. The DJs will be held accountable under Australian and International law only.

I gave the leverson ininquiry as a poor example ........ admited. And maybe I again failed to properly express myself.

What i wanted to point out is: that ignoring the law whilest trying to gain privat information can lead to bad consequences.
The recent phone hacking scandal is for me a perfect example of this.

I didn`t demand for a regulatory body or anything. I would simply suggest that laws - are inforced - which they should have been, but werent during the time in which criminal activity amongst tabloid journalists was ongoing.

I do have no clue which laws will apply if this case should be investigated.

Countery to popular belief, international law does not provide laws and standards for every single aspect of criminal justice for every nation (that would undermine a nations sovereignty and therefor violate the UN charta). Legal matters such as extradition and cross border court and police cooperation are sett into existance and their limitations determined through treaties via diplomatic negotiations. So if there will be legal action - then it`s course and whos responsibility it is will be are determined by the legal treaties between the UK and Australia.

Here Germans, this is for you buddy I know how you love memes.

---

---

great.................. you made a "funny".

what a wonderfull display of how mature you are.

I think what I said just went right over your head, sorry!

Maybe if you would have kept your shit together and actualy once in a while do some research, you would know that members of scienology have to sign legal papers concerning the private information they give to the organisation..... which is why scientology can publish this privat information.

Because they have their members\ex-members legal concent.

You fail to miss the point that privat information canot be simply published.

Let me explain this concept to you again: information is free, you can not lock it. There are protections in place, yes, but at the end of the day information is free - if you come into that information legally, you can publish the information, doesn't matter what it is.

There is freedom of information in the sence that everyone has access to free information.

You fail to understand that my question is: "What information should be freely accessabel"?

Medical records of a individual should not be without the legal concent of that individual.

Did they get that information with the individuals legal concent?

NO.