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.