What's stupid is for high court judges to impose a law that has not passed through Parliament. That's what's stupid. If they are allowed to do this, what will they do next? There is a protocol that is not being followed.

We differ here... you think people should be allowed to do whatever they like and have their tracks covered by a judge who's making it up as he goes along for the benefit of the rich and shameless. I disagree.

If I stand back from it, I agree completely with you. But as someone with very young children, I find it very difficult to stand back and allow liberalism to free up and protect nasty predators. I think there's a very small number of these individuals who are without hope of rehabilitation. If we could assess and assign them in a better way, rather than heaping them all into the same soup bowl and expecting some miracle cure to have invaded their conscience just in time for the end of their prison sentence, we'd have some hope. There are some that should be allowed a second chance - and some that shouldn't. Naming them in the press and handing the control over to the mob is never the answer.

well footballers and sportstars become famous as a result of being good at what they do. So its not like they've sought fame as such. And they don't ask to be role models.

If it is Ryan Giggs then he's an absolute moron for even going near a known tabloid tramp. But the protection could actually be more for his wife and family. His wife and the world already know if its him so its not getting him off the hook. Just sparing us a load of sordid details with names attached.

Hear, hear ..... :thumbs2:

Rather that than have them remain anon and have them preying on my kids when I have them. I have no sympathy for pedophiles at all I'm afraid. In any situation.

(Is aware that this threads not just about this but thats the main thing that pisses me off about these 'privacy' things.)

We should have sufficient controls within the systems that exist to keep the psycopathic away from the rest of us, once they're identified. In the absence of those controls, and if the only other options are put people in danger or set the Sun's mob on them then, yeah, let the mob have them. The point I was making was that we should strive for a situation where tabloids don't become our moral arbiters. It's a bit sick.

I totally agree with this post :)

If I had a partner and I had an affair, would it be protected if I didnt want anyone to find out? NO!! so why should footballers......

Nobody would care about your affair on a national level though, everyone's entitled to a private life regardless of their status or income.

If somebody has the money to throw around to do it then why not? It's not like who's shagging who is vital information we all need to know. It's gossip and there's nothing beneficial in knowing about it. Let him and his family deal with it in private as it's no one else's business at the end of the day.

Yes it is ..... if he's portraying himself as Mr Clean and Wholesome to earn millions of pounds from family-oriented sponsors but he's really Mr Down and Dirty, then the sponsors need to know before their products are tainted by association, and buyers of both his image and his endorsed products need to know that he's a cheat and a liar, using their money to fund his extra-marital womanising and his legal cover-up ..... they may decide that it doesn't matter ..... apparently the Duke of Wellington got away with it, but Profumo didn't ..... ;)

oh Omah please, you're only against privacy injunctions because if they were in place across the board, you'd have nothing to post about

You've said this before, I shot it down. Not every celebrity relies on endorsements and the media, not everyone is Katie Price, why tar them all with the same brush? Why should celebrities be denied a private life just so that a bunch of nosey bitches can have something to gossip about for 5 minutes?

No, I'm against them because they are not the law of the land but "laws" bought for cash which threaten freedom of speech and the search for truth, not just in "Celebrityworld" but in the worlds of politics, finance and commerce :

http://thelinc.co.uk/2010/03/the-super-injunction/

:shocked:

No, you didn't ..... :nono:

[/QUOTE]Not every celebrity relies on endorsements and the media[/QUOTE]

Yes, they do ..... :wink:

Why should celebrities decide what they want to be private and what they want to be public - if they've got something to hide, then those who fund their lifestyle should know about it ..... :evilgrin:

Let's apply that to everyone shall we? We should live our whole lives, every aspect of it, to how our work bosses say we should. We should all have no privacy and everything we do can and will affect our work even though any incidents may not be related. It wouldn't work so why should we apply that very flawed logic to celebrities simply because of who they are? Everyone's got a right to privacy and it enrages me how easily some people would want to explain those rights away.

So paedophiles can work in schools ..... :eek:

it comes with the job they just need to deal with it. you say sports people dont do it for fame, true but nowadays there is a chance, they should weigh up the pros and cons of the career before doing it.

celebrities and sports people should have the same rights to privacy, which are what they do should have consequences. if they dont like it they dont have to do the job.

ROFL at you.

Criminal offences and cheating are two different things and you know it. If it's not breaking the law and it's a personal issue then I'm all for injunctions, it's not our business to know but past criminal offences are different as it's a matter of public safety. Cheating with a bimbo is hardly comparable to allowing peadophiles to work in schools.

Thanks for making that comparision though, it's made your argument look a whole lot more ridiculous.

The thing is, though, that everyone could take the pish as much as they wanted when E television or whatever it's called arrived on the scene, but they shut up laughing when the viewing figures came in. Same's true of all those people needling to lynch paps after Diana died. By virtue of the fact that they were on the streets crying about someone they'd never met - they were probably the people buying the newspapers and magazines that carried coverage of Diana, paid for the pics and encouraged the taking of more. It's way, way too easy to dub all tabloid journalists scum because they are satisfying a voracious appetite for celebrity gossip. A lot of people want it both ways - they want to be able to spit on the paps but they damn sure want a juicy story on the front of The Sun the following morning. Celebrities carry on with the same nonsense. Moaning about how their life's not worth living but wetting themselves with temper if their 'competition' gets more column inches. Load'a'nonsense. Having said ALL of that, I still think the injunctions are probably a good idea. So long as they're not doing anything illegal, it probably is no-one else's business. If the one night stand's got that little regard for herself, and the wife's got that little regard for herself; let them at it.

Erm, I didn't say "convicted" paedophiles ..... :nono:

Because of your preferred "privacy of the individual", the sexual preferences of employees would be protected information and therefore unknown to prospective employers ..... ;)

Of course, I could substute "philanderer" for "paedophile" - persistent philandering is not illegal, of course, but it is highly disruptive in the workplace but, again, under your preferred "privacy of the individual", the sexual proclivity of an employees would be protected information and therefore unknown to the employer until it directly affected the productivity of several individuals ..... :eek:

That's ridiculous, the employer has no right to know the sexual preferences of his workers and it shouldnt be used as a basis for whether someone is appropiate for the job or not

Pity the poor employer ..... :(

That is among one of the most stupid posts I've read and as a long time member of this forum, that's something.

How would a person's right to privacy protect UNCONVICTED peadophiles? It's not like they would go 'oyah, just to let you know I fiddle with little kids!:xyxwave:' in a job interview isn't it? They'd lie if they were asked about it and the only way you'd know for certain was if they were already convicted of it. If someone hasn't been convicted of a crime then there's no way of knowing about so how would privacy change that really?
The only way your point works was if I included criminal records in my argument of things that should be allowed to be kept private and as I said a few posts back, Past criminal activities could be a public safety issue so they shouldn't be allowed injunctions when it comes to that.

You're really flailing at the moment aren't you?

I'd destroy your point about Employer's being allowed knowledge into an employee's sex life but MTVN did a good enough job of that already. It's hilarious that you still think cheating can be compared to peadophillia though.

Amen :worship:

Foreign papers not affected by UK injunctions
 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-sto...5875-23121827/

:joker:

Superinjuctions shot down in flames ..... private lives of "protected" celebrities exposed worldwide ...... :hello: :amazed: :cheer2: :thumbs2: :cheer: :evilgrin: :hello:

Americans are bemused that famous people in the UK are able to stop the publication of details of their private lives, because it goes against one of their country's founding principles, free speech.

:cool:;):cool:

Celebrities including footballers make their living by being presented to the public. Anyone with a career involving the public I believe have no right to privacy laws. They make their bed and should rest in it.

People accused of a crime however is far more difficult. Some have said for example paedo'es should have no right to privacy. I agree with the sentiment but in practice some accused of a crime are actually inoccent and yet they would suffer not only false accusation but also public persecution.

Also if for example a paedo was attcked the attacker would be commiting a crime by taking the law into their own hands A wrongly accused person may be seriously hurt or worse. So a privacy law involving criminal is a way of protecting hot heads who want revenge that the law does not give.......

Even convicted criminals are sometimes not guilty. For that reason and that reason only serious criminal accusations should be subject to a privacy law....

Actors, actressess, sports folk and presenters should accept the consequences of their carreer if they beahave in a dishonourable manner......

The internet blows a hole in the concept of privacy so enforcing any law should there be one is probably impossible anyhow......