[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Adam.

What if its a non famous person who they no longer have contact with?

Then it's like life where people don't make statements to the press to contact sexual partners they never see again.

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Then it's like life where people don't make statements to the press to contact sexual partners they never see again.

Yeah that, basically

[Denver]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Then it's like life where people don't make statements to the press to contact sexual partners they never see again.

But a celebrity has the power to get words across.

If everyone thinks gay Celebs should come out then I think it's just as important for Celeb with life threatening diseases that are catchable should tell the world.

Also by not tell someone is very stupid especially if there bleeding and someone is helping them.

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by Adam.

But a celebrity has the power to get words across.

If everyone thinks gay Celebs should come out then I think it's just as important for Celeb with life threatening diseases that are catchable should tell the world.

Also by not tell someone is very stupid especially if there bleeding and someone is helping them.

They do have that power but it should still be up to them if they decide to go public. Also, I don't think everyone does think that gay celebs should have to come out. I don't anyway. Regardless, as far as medical information goes, everyone's entitled to privacy regardless of their celebrity status

[kirklancaster]

"Ya gotta laugh son"

WHY Is the naming of Cliff Richard being interviewed by police as part of a 400 year old sexual assault allegation, the media circus being tipped off by police as to their search of his house, and the further interview by police a year or so later - all with no charges being brought - more acceptable to some than the possible naming of a 'superstar' who has allegedly contracted HIV through indiscreet promiscuity?

Allegedly, Cliff may be a pervert ('allegedly' and 'may' being the key words) but is he really such a danger to others that naming him BEFORE he has actually been arrested, charged, and convicted, can be justified as a public duty? Whereas, if this 'superstar has HIV and is still promiscuous, naming him CAN be justified as being in the public interest - forwarning possible sexual partners being paramount.

Just asking.

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

"Ya gotta laugh son"

WHY Is the naming of Cliff Richard being interviewed by police as part of a 400 year old sexual assault allegation, the media circus being tipped off by police as to their search of his house, and the further interview by police a year or so later - all with no charges being brought - more acceptable to some than the possible naming of a 'superstar' who has allegedly contracted HIV through indiscreet promiscuity?

Allegedly, Cliff may be a pervert ('allegedly' and 'may' being the key words) but is he really such a danger to others that naming him BEFORE he has actually been arrested, charged, and convicted, can be justified as a public duty? Whereas, if this 'superstar has HIV and is still promiscuous, naming him CAN be justified as being in the public interest - forwarning possible sexual partners being paramount.

Just asking.

At first glance I thought you were outing Cliff Richard as the guy with HIV... then I remembered "womanizer" lol.

Well I can only speak for myself but personally I was against all the publicity surrounding the Cliff Richard issue as well, or any situation where someone has their name dragged through the mud without there being any real evidence. Generally I'm not the kind of person who is interested in anything to do with celebrities anyway so the circus that erupts every time a celebrity MAY have done something just annoys me, especially when there's real news going on elsewhere.
I disagree though that the naming of this celebrity would be in the public's interest as a way of forewarning potential sex partners, because that's not the way we deal with people who have HIV. The only possible reason for doing it in this case, is because he's a celebrity. But I think when it comes to medical issues they should have the same right to privacy as the rest of us. I know it doesn't exactly work out that way and he will probably end up being named regardless, but that's my stance on it anyway.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Adam.

But a celebrity has the power to get words across.

If everyone thinks gay Celebs should come out then I think it's just as important for Celeb with life threatening diseases that are catchable should tell the world.

Also by not tell someone is very stupid especially if there bleeding and someone is helping them.

But it's still not a public matter. It's between the celeb and whoever they choose to have sex with.