[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.

[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.

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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.

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 .....

[patsylimerick]

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.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Omah

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 .....

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.

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I doubt The Sun would publish a story about Sandra down the road having it off with the postman.

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

Joanne Hale was having an affair with a married man she met on the internet before plying her husband Peter with a sex drug and taking him to woodland in Stoke Park, Bristol.

Hale, 39, sobbed as she was found guilty of attempted murder by majority verdict at Bristol Crown Court.

Hale had struck up a relationship over the internet with married postal worker Philip Sudol who had travelled from Leeds to Bristol for a romantic liaison.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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.

Actually, I don't think it has anything to do with being envious... I do hate that "you're just jealous" mentality. It has to do with the fact that these people SELL their lives to the media, they make shed-loads of money out of it, they become role models to young people and then they think they can flout all the rules and remain anonymous. I expect Ryan Giggs thought that when he shagged Imogen... but is there anyone alive that doesn't know it was him? People are notoriously bad at keeping juicy secrets.

Don't use the press to enhance your image, further your career and add to your bank balance, and then bleat on about privacy when they catch you with your trousers down.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Livia

Actually, I don't think it has anything to do with being envious... I do hate that "you're just jealous" mentality. It has to do with the fact that these people SELL their lives to the media, they make shed-loads of money out of it, they become role models to young people and then they think they can flout all the rules and remain anonymous. I expect Ryan Giggs thought that when he shagged Imogen... but is there anyone alive that doesn't know it was him? People are notoriously bad at keeping juicy secrets.

Don't use the press to enhance your image, further your career and add to your bank balance, and then bleat on about privacy when they catch you with your trousers down.

I think it does have to do with money considering his posts about the rich later on but I guess you haven't read that far yet.

You're tarring everyone with the same brush and it's a bit stupid to do so, Not all celebrities use the media in how they describe it. Not all of them choose to be at the mercy of the paparazzi so why deny them the right to a private life just because they earn more money then the rest of us, they're still human and they are still prone to mistakes. We don't get our dirty secrets revealed on a national scale if we make it a mistake so why is it okay for their privacy to go out the window just because of their income?

The whole 'Role Model' thing is just a poor excuse for bad parents to pass the buck with. Like any well raised and adjusted child would see Tiger Woods and think 'One day I'll cheat like that because anything Tiger Woods does is worth emulating!'

Like I said before though, not everyone is Katie Price,

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I think it does have to do with money considering his posts about the rich later on but I guess you haven't read that far yet.

You're tarring everyone with the same brush and it's a bit stupid to do so...

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.

[Zippy]

Originally Posted by Livia

Actually, I don't think it has anything to do with being envious... I do hate that "you're just jealous" mentality. It has to do with the fact that these people SELL their lives to the media, they make shed-loads of money out of it, they become role models to young people and then they think they can flout all the rules and remain anonymous. I expect Ryan Giggs thought that when he shagged Imogen... but is there anyone alive that doesn't know it was him? People are notoriously bad at keeping juicy secrets.

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.

[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.