[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.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Omah

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

That's different. She tried to KILL him.