Do you agree with privacy injunctions?
 

Do you think it's fair to protect the privacy of people for the sake of something deemed immoral that they have done? This ranges from protecting the privacy of James Bulger's murderers to recent examples of celebrity infidelity - bearing those sorts of extremes in mind, what do you think?

On the one hand, it could be seen as protecting those who some would say do not deserve to be protected, on the other hand, it could be argued that their lives have already been ruined in some way and that there's no need to stick another nail in the coffin.

i think if someone has done something wrong why shouldn't they be punished. if you don't give someone privacy then thats not a punishment its what the people who find out choose to do with it. depends on the situation. for example i dont think premiership footballers identity should be covered up because they made the mistake of cheating on their wife. but if someone was mentally ill and did a crime by mistake and it would cause them great pain to have people know about it though not intentional i think that person should be granted privacy.

Do you agree with privacy injunctions?
 

No - they are being used to protect the image and the income of the already filthy rich ..... :mad:

I don't get how they work, what happens if in the latest case ( The Imogen one ) if she said who it was in an interview or something.. would she be fined?

I dont agree with them at all. Boohoo, poor little paedo gets punched in the street because people know what he is. Much better than people not knowing and him striking again.

Overall I don't agree with them. If wrong has been done then I think it ought to be revealed but NOT just when its speculation, once admitted or proven something wrong has been done, only then should it be fully made public knowledge.

No I don't agree with them, whatever happened to freedom of speech :bored:

They're not even 100% effective in achieving what they set out to do, the press find other ways to reveal telling information that allows the public to make pretty good estimations of who's obtained the injunction (in the case of celebrities) and because of that, people who have nothing to do with the issue are dragged through the mud because people speculate and the truth never comes out officially.

I believe people have a right to privacy, just because someone is well known doesn't mean they don't deserve the same rights as a normal person.

The Slick Lawyers used Euro Laws

but the Dirty Rich Married Cads name is on the internet
so some of us know

Yes.


Poxy Euro Laws stopped it.

Sometimes yes. When it comes to people like sports stars for example then yes. They never chose to be famous, they just happened to be good at a sport, so why should their private lives be splashed around all over the place especially when half of it is lies.


When it comes to crime, then no. You choose to commit that crime, you reap the consequences of it.

Surely if it's sports stars it is true otherwise they wouldn't have taken out the injunction.

Even so, they have every right to have their private lives kept private.

Not if their private life is at variance with their public image which they are using to generate massive amounts of income from sponsors and punters ..... :nono:

Everyone has a right to a private life, just because you're envious of their income doesn't mean they are less deserving of it.

If they are being sponsored for example by Lucozade for atheletic purposes, then what has them cheating on thier wife got to do with that? Absolutely nothing. People act like these people are commiting murder (if that was the case then fair dos) but many people in society cheat on their partners. Not condoning it, but everyone acts as if they are so perfect and that celebrities, famous people, rich people should know better. They are still prone to human flaws like the rest of us.

People are just too nosey and get off on people's misery and mistakes.

That doesnt answer the question, just another way for you to slag the euro off, dont keep doing this.

In the Internet age there are no secrets. The best they can hope for is their names won't be emblazoned on the Red Tops. But we all know the celebs involved already.

The point is that, whoever you are, if you are married with children and involved in say, dubious sexual practices with a third party, newspapers are free to print the details, unless you shell out £50k in the High Court for an injunction to stop them, so only the wealthy are protected by these "unofficial" privacy laws, while ordinary people have no such protection - "ordinary" could, of course, include people with local social or civic status, such as athletes, teachers or councillors .....

So, if you're Mr Clean and Wholesome and being used by Coca-Cola International to sell Coke to kids, the company will drop you like stone if it is publicly disclosed that you're sh*****g underage *****s before appearances with their name on your shirt (or worse, while you're wearing their name on your shirt ) - several million pounds a year suddenly disappears from your bank accounts, to be followed by ever more losses as other sponsors pull out ..... unless you pay members of the legal and judicial system to prevent the public disclosure of your sordid "private" life .....

I suppose there has to be some mechanism to stop cheap little trollops (male or female) spouting nonsense for a few bob, but the privacy injunction is a very different thing to the non-publication of sex offenders' details. The principal purpose of non-disclosure in many sex offence cases is to protect the victim. There's also the risk of mob rule. However, you end up with a situation where random guy 'A' is in court for drink driving and has his name published in the paper. His neighbour, random guy 'B', rapes his niece and cannot be identified. In our current system, any criminal case of any kind involving a child imposes an automatic ban on the publication of the names of anyone involved. It takes away the element of punishment that is the shame. Totally different issue, however, to privacy injunctions, which I can understand the appetite for. If these men's wives are stupid and undignified enough to put up with this kind of shoite, hey ho.

If there is one thing in this world I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy, it's an angry mob.

No,if your famous you need to accept that you are ALWAYS in the public eye.ANd if you do something bad e.g. an affair with a gold-digging bimbo who wants to sell the story she has the right to sell it as much as you have to get an injunction.

Rubbish.

There are often other people inadvertently involved like wives and children who are totally innocent and suffering enough already. Why should their names be dragged through the media?

Each case is different but there's certainly a need for such injunctions sometimes.

They already are, except for the filthy rich - local and national rags and mags cover "marital infidelity" with alacrity and enthusiasm ..... :wink:

Husband froze to death as he cheated on wife

Top Gear's Jeremy Clarkson’s ‘test drive fun’ with leggy mistress

If they have anything to hide then they shoudnt do it in the first place. :xyxwave:

Lets take an example- Imogen from BB- A Prem footballer with wife and family has been there and now requested anonimity through the high courts to keep him safe? WTF? He knows the rules- keep it at home. How would any normal person be able to keep their identity out of the news?Load of bollocks IMO. One rule for the Rich and another for the poor. He knew what he was he was doing and should be made to face the consequencies. Am surprised it hasnt been leaked on foreign websites .

but if it were your average Joe it wouldnt be all over the media anyways so thats rather a moot point.

and its been leaked everywhere btw. Keep up, love.

Yeah, I absolutely agree .... ;)

So Joe Cole had an affair with Ewan McGregor!!! :shocked:

Oh no ?

:rolleyes: .....

Teacher ‘groomed pupil for sex’

:nono: thats about a sensational under age scandal which breaks the law and moral taboos. Hardly the same as somebody cheating on their wife.

Definitely, privacy is a fundamental right for everyone, how is someone's sexual life any business of the general public. There are certain things the public have a right to know, the actions of their government for example, but the private life of an individual is not one of them

Botox doctor's sexual liaison with dominatrix in his surgery

Tory MP James Gray secretly marries mistress he romanced while wife battled breast cancer

It's only the celebrities who'll have their dirty laundry aired in national magazines though, I doubt The Sun would publish a story about Sandra down the road having it off with the postman. Your Average Joe doesn't need media injunctions from the High Courts. I just think that Fame shouldn't mean that you have to have your whole life played out in front of the cameras especially when a lot of people would rather be anonymous. Not everyone wants to be Katie Price.

At the end of the day Actors, Sportsmen, Musicians ETC are just jobs, I don't think that the public are entitled to knowing the inner workings of these people's lives, It doesn't matter how much money they earn they still should have the same rights as anybody else.

One thing I'm aware of is marketing and advertising, there's no need to explain anything to me about sponsorships and the like. Your point about Sponsorships doesn't mean anything, just because someone promotes a product doesn't mean that they sign away their rights to a private life.

No. Said celebritie's atheletes shouldn't be doing what they're doing in the first place.

But the Yorkshire Post might :

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/...rder_1_2307402

'Horny goat' wife in Leeds postman love triangle guilty of attempted murder

Firsty that's only a local paper and secondly the report is primarily on the fact that, you know, she tried to kill her husband

Nevertheless, I've proved my point - the news is (rightly) out there, unless you pay the judiciary to have it suppressed without recourse to the law of the land as approved by Parliament..... :wink: