[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Smithy

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.

[Omah]

Originally Posted by ukturtle

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 .....

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Omah

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 .....

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.

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Omah

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 .....

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.

[cub]

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.

[BB_Eye]

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

[Sam:)]

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.

[GypsyGoth]

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

[MTVN]

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

[King Gizzard]

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

[MTVN]

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

[Omah]

Originally Posted by MTVN

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.....

[Zippy]

Originally Posted by Omah

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.....

Money always has and always will talk. Its the reality of life.

but if youre that famous then the story will come out regardless. Just like it is doing with the Imogen saga. Personally Im grateful to be spared the graphic details.

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Zippy

Money always has and always will talk. Its the reality of life.

My point proved again - one law for the rich, another for the poor .....

So, the innocent wives and children of the the poor but "wayward" husband have always suffered, and always will, and the innocent wives and children of the the rich but "wayward" husband will have always had their lifestyles maintained, and always will .....

Say la vee, nest pass .....

[Tom4784]

Crime reports and gossip reports are completely incomparable and different. All the stories you've linked to have been primarily about crime or malpractice in the workplace. You've been unable to provide an example of an average person being reported in a paper for simply cheating which would be a comparable example but normal people aren't at risk of that since the media only care about celebrities so they will report every little thing that happens to them so I don't blame them for seeking injunctions because I wouldn't want all my mistakes revealed to the world simply because of who I am.

[Shaun]

Yes. Mostly because it's not any of my business.

With regard to notorious killers (Ian Huntley, Maxine Carr) I genuinely don't understand the media furore about them. Yes, what they did was unforgivable. But what exactly is going around media sites, spouting endless streams of "THYE SHOULD BE HUNG DRAWN AND QUARTERED" and other such medieval pourings of hatred - what does this achieve? It's just sensationalism at its very worst.

[Marsh.]

Wish someone would slap an injuntion on Katie Price's life and all the other idiots who's "profession" seems to be getting filmed doing bugger all yet rolling in money.

Whether she wants it or not ban the media from bothering with her. Disgusting creature.

[zotler.]

What if someone is sorry for their crime? Does that not matter? Of course, you can't assume everyone is but those that are - will they be able to start over after their punishment if people are punching them as they walk down the street?

[patsylimerick]

Originally Posted by zotler.

What if someone is sorry for their crime? Does that not matter? Of course, you can't assume everyone is but those that are - will they be able to start over after their punishment if people are punching them as they walk down the street?

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.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by patsylimerick

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.

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.)

[patsylimerick]

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.

[Omah]

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/04...junction-ever/

The order involves a mother – referred to as ‘M’ – who is seeking court permission to let her brain-damaged daughter die.

The super-injunction covers media coverage of the ongoing case. The court order bans journalists communicating with M or any other member of her family: “whether orally in person, or by telephoning, text message, email or other means”.

The Court of Protection specifically bans all journalists from contacting 65 people or coming within 50m of four properties.

Flouting that ban risks being found guilty of contempt of court, which could mean a fine or prison.

But guess what? We don’t know who those people are or what properties the court refers to.

[Shaun]

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

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Shaun

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

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/

The recent action against the Guardian to stifle stories about an oil company went to extraordinary lengths which went well beyond any idea of protecting the applicant’s privacy and equitable interests.

The lawyers for the claimant (the oil company) were not only seeking to prevent adverse commentaries on the company’s activities but sought to injunct any kind of debate about including apparently debate in parliament.

[CharlieO]

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.