[Z]

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.

[CharlieO]

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.

[JackLewisScott]

Originally Posted by CharlieOsborne

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.

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......

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by JackLewisScott

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.

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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 .....

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Omah

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 .....

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?

[Omah]

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

[Zippy]

Originally Posted by Omah

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

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.

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Zippy

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?

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

Husband froze to death as he cheated on wife

Syed Hussain, 29, had parked in a garage with Shabana Akhtar as temperatures plunged to -10C (14F) during the freezing weather last December – but died after the lovers of three years fell asleep.

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

BRAZEN Jeremy Clarkson took his “leggy” mistress for a spin in a Maserati – then bragged about it in a newspaper column.

Clarkson, 50 – caught cheating on loyal wife Frances with TV colleague Phillipa Sage, 42 – invited the blonde on a test drive more than a year ago during the New Zealand leg of the Top Gear Live tour. The thrilled TV presenter and his companion were chauffeured around in the £80,000 sports car by a driver called Nigel.

[Real]

Originally Posted by Omah

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

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

[Real]

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 .

[Claymores]

Originally Posted by Zippy

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.

If you don't really want to screw around with a cheap ex-Miss Wales then why do it? It was gonna get into the papers. The wife deserves to know if he's messed about with a z-lister

[Zippy]

Originally Posted by Claymores

If you don't really want to screw around with a cheap ex-Miss Wales then why do it? It was gonna get into the papers. The wife deserves to know if he's messed about with a z-lister

of course the wife deserves to know but it doesn't have to be via the tabloids! Theyre two separate issues.

anyways..

at this point its a complete farce. Everybody knows who it is and the utter idiot just keeps drawing more attention to himself by trying to control the whole media world! Nobody can control the internet and its pathetic and arrogant to even try.

He deserves to be strung out now for his continued stupidity. Ive never thought the person themselves deserved protection for their own outrageous behaviour(they chose to do it knowing the consequences) but their family and children did. At this point though his name is out there so its too late.

[Novo]

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?

[arista]

Originally Posted by Novo

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?

The Slick Lawyers used Euro Laws

[Iceman]

Originally Posted by arista

The Slick Lawyers used Euro Laws

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

[Vicky.]

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.

[joeysteele]

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.

[Smithy]

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

[arista]

Originally Posted by Smithy

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

Yes.


Poxy Euro Laws stopped it.

[Z]

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.

[Tom4784]

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.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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.

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

[Benjamin]

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.

[Smithy]

Originally Posted by ukturtle

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.