This is an interesting topic and I've not read the whole thread but we dont seem to be in any clearer position now than we were in the 1970s when Tom Jones took out an injunction to stop a story going to print. Privacy v freedom of the press, will it ever be sorted?
One of the judges in the Tom Jones case at the time said:
"It seems to me that those who seek and welcome publicity of every kind bearing on their private lives so long as it shows them in a favourable light are in no position to complain of an invasion of their privacy by publicity which shows them in an unfavourable light".
Well said that judge and I agree with him 100%. It's a joke that *some* people are happy to sell every inch of their lives to us but start sobbing and run to the court if the media get hold of a negative story. If you sell your soul to the devil (the red tops and gossip mags in this case), you end up getting burnt.
Fine, if these players want a totally private life, then have one. Just don't push your wife into the public domain as a 'celeb' writing a column, appearing on a reality tv show or generally being famous for nothing more than who she's married to.
This is an interesting topic and I've not read the whole thread but we dont seem to be in any clearer position now than we were in the 1970s when Tom Jones took out an injunction to stop a story going to print. Privacy v freedom of the press, will it ever be sorted?
One of the judges in the Tom Jones case at the time said:
"It seems to me that those who seek and welcome publicity of every kind bearing on their private lives so long as it shows them in a favourable light are in no position to complain of an invasion of their privacy by publicity which shows them in an unfavourable light".
Well said that judge and I agree with him 100%. It's a joke that *some* people are happy to sell every inch of their lives to us but start sobbing and run to the court if the media get hold of a negative story. If you sell your soul to the devil (the red tops and gossip mags in this case), you end up getting burnt.
Fine, if these players want a totally private life, then have one. Just don't push your wife into the public domain as a 'celeb' writing a column, appearing on a reality tv show or generally being famous for nothing more than who she's married to.
Exactly, the sad part about it is people will claim that its them that wants it and their fella's just sit back and leave them too it:D Doesnt a husband encourage his wife
the wives have minds of their own and if they would like to grab the opportunities afforded to them because they are a players wife then they should.
All it is is talentless hacks who look for opportunities to drag down a player for having the nerve to be paid a ton of money for something they like doing and having an attractive partner. In Baden Baden, the wags went about their business shopping and the media followed them.
Im sorry but you pay to see your team performing, what if his off the field activities prevent him from playing? You pay his wages you want him to conduct himself in a respectful manner, not give kids a bad image of what footballers are as they look up to these people.
You pay for the right to watch but that is all. The performance of anyone involved is not guaranteed nor is it implied. If any player is injured you cannot demand a partial refund therefore performance is irrelevant
Therefore we may want them to be a pinnacle of respectability but expecting a 21 year old semi literate uneducated thug who kicks a leatherlook plastic ball around for a living as some paragon of virtue is beyond reasonable expectation.
We have no 'right' to blur the public and private.We choose to do so as it allows us to be intrusive and nosy without any perceived guilty feelings...
Posters here make all kinds of outrageous judgments on various 'celebs' without knowing either the truth nor the person involved. They do so by using "They are in the public and as such it's my 'right' to abuse them" as if that somehow justifies their self centred vindictive nastiness. Well it doesn't wash with me that's for sure!
I suggest for future reference that you educate any kids you meet to enjoy their footballing skills but not to place too much emphasis on their social skills..
If I couldn't get an injunction to stop friends,neighbours or work colleagues finding out about something I've done, why the hell should a celebrity ? They're no different to the rest of ,just well known.
You pay for the right to watch but that is all. The performance of anyone involved is not guaranteed nor is it implied. If any player is injured you cannot demand a partial refund therefore performance is irrelevant
Therefore we may want them to be a pinnacle of respectability but expecting a 21 year old semi literate uneducated thug who kicks a leatherlook plastic ball around for a living as some paragon of virtue is beyond reasonable expectation.
We have no 'right' to blur the public and private.We choose to do so as it allows us to be intrusive and nosy without any perceived guilty feelings...
Posters here make all kinds of outrageous judgments on various 'celebs' without knowing either the truth nor the person involved. They do so by using "They are in the public and as such it's my 'right' to abuse them" as if that somehow justifies their self centred vindictive nastiness. Well it doesn't wash with me that's for sure!
I suggest for future reference that you educate any kids you meet to enjoy their footballing skills but not to place too much emphasis on their social skills..
If a footballer or anyone else sets themselves up as a product, selling family based products based on his "perfect family" and then cheats and then tries to gag a newspaper.. is that not wrong?
Are we not entitled to be outraged by him taking the piss out of our hand earned money?
if the drama caused by an affair means hes off-form and our team lose? when hes earning in one match what we earn in a year are we not entitled to be angry about that?
Footballers and celebs are human yes, they muck up yes, we are judgemental yes.. but we're entitled to be as we've paid for the champagne theyre crying into in self pity in their cheshire mansions we also paid for as their wife gives them grief wearing a 100k ring, we also paid for.
but nobody is selling any of that stuff in football. And the general public isn't paying for footballers. Our taxes aren't paying their wages. Their money comes out of football sponserships, tickets etc and those that do pay for those things really don't care what the player does in their private life provided its legal and in no threat to any of us.
If a footballer or anyone else sets themselves up as a product, selling family based products based on his "perfect family" and then cheats and then tries to gag a newspaper.. is that not wrong?
.
But who has the right to judge? And why do you really want to know anyway? Because of some deep sense of morality or because of prurience? I suspect that for most people bleating about this, it is the latter.
The truth is that the private life of anyone - be it a celebrity or the cleaner where I work - is none of my bloody business or anyone else's. Frankly, they could people their beds with sheep for all I care. This obsession with celebrity tittle-tattle has cheapened and undermined our society over the past two decades.
but nobody is selling any of that stuff in football. And the general public isn't paying for footballers. Our taxes aren't paying their wages. Their money comes out of football sponserships, tickets etc and those that do pay for those things really don't care what the player does in their private life provided its legal and in no threat to any of us.
Speak for yourself I wouldn't buy a Steven Gerrard number and named shirt if I didn't like him as a personality (which they are nowadays) football or not! My grandson is an Evertonian and if a footballer from that team was a scumbag personally then I'd buy another player's shirt. MY MONEY, MY CHOICE, MY STANDARDS, MY OPINION, MY PRINCIPLES...:mad:
but nobody is selling any of that stuff in football. And the general public isn't paying for footballers. Our taxes aren't paying their wages. Their money comes out of football sponserships, tickets etc and those that do pay for those things really don't care what the player does in their private life provided its legal and in no threat to any of us.
They are.. a lot of them are.... a lot of wags bring in a lot of money to their husbands from photo shoots in OK and sponership deals.. a lot of sponsership deals on a personal basis have a "good moral code" attachement... as they are seen as people to look up to.
We are paying their wages with every ticket sale, every shirt sale, every pair of socks/footie boots they endorse... and youre claiming to speak for every person whose ever brought a ticket and supported a team.. you cant do that any more than I can say they agree with me... but basically to say you dont pay their wages is foolhardy. If you stop supporting the club, stop turning up and their gates drop, tv wont show their games, corporations wont want to sponser deals with teams no ones interested in.. commerical football is a dodgy field as has been proved with Everton/Notts county and their recent troubles with Quadbank.
But who has the right to judge? And why do you really want to know anyway? Because of some deep sense of morality or because of prurience? I suspect that for most people bleating about this, it is the latter.
The truth is that the private life of anyone - be it a celebrity or the cleaner where I work - is none of my bloody business or anyone else's. Frankly, they could people their beds with sheep for all I care. This obsession with celebrity tittle-tattle has cheapened and undermined our society over the past two decades.
Youre entitled to your opinion but youre posing on a showbiz forum, so get off your moral high horse, why are you posting on a showbiz forum but slagging people off who look into showbiz lives?
If i contribute to thier financial wellbeing then ive got a say, simple as if they dont like it? they can withdraw from public life cant they?
Youre entitled to your opinion but youre posing on a showbiz forum, so get off your moral high horse, why are you posting on a showbiz forum but slagging people off who look into showbiz lives? )
If you read my post again (carefully, I suggest this time) you'll see I have done no such thing; I merely posed a reasonable question. But I sense from your post that you are not someone who allows facts to get in the way of a good rant.
And in seemingly suggesting that I'm not entitled to post my opinion on a show business thread, do you not see that you're trying gag me? I presume you're unaware of the irony...
If you read my post again (carefully, I suggest this time) you'll see I have done no such thing; I merely posed a reasonable question. But I sense from your post that you are not someone who allows facts to get in the way of a good rant.
And in seemingly suggesting that I'm not entitled to post my opinion on a show business thread, do you not see that you're trying gag me? I presume you're unaware of the irony...
none of the above..
Im asking if youre so anti looking into or prying into celeb culture why youre posting on a showbiz forum, seems a bit hypocritical... as for ranting.. i did no such thing.. but we all see things differently dont we.. i merely asked you to explain why if i help maintain their lifestyles why you felt they need privacy, but you havent answered that?
ill even quote you back to help you
But who has the right to judge? And why do you really want to know anyway? Because of some deep sense of morality or because of prurience? I suspect that for most people bleating about this, it is the latter.
youre very quick to pass judgement on the posters? but dont want it passed on you?
but nobody is selling any of that stuff in football. And the general public isn't paying for footballers. Our taxes aren't paying their wages. Their money comes out of football sponserships, tickets etc and those that do pay for those things really don't care what the player does in their private life provided its legal and in no threat to any of us.
Tiger Woods' sponsors disagree. They did care about his private life and many of them have dropped him.
Why should they be able to control the media and actively affect the business of newspapers?
I don't read tabloids, but they are legal and appreciated by some. If you don't see that rank hypocrisy is a thing to be abhorred, then I fear we are wasting our time arguing.
I never said I liked it, I said I have no legal right to know about it.
You really don't think it's a good thing to know when people barefacedly lie, profit from it and turn out to be worse than those they condemn? You obviously have been brought up with different standards and morals to me.
Is it a good thing, yes, do we have a legal right to it, no.
You have my sympathy and no, it's not one of your players. If it were one of my teams,(They are in East end of Glasgow ) I would want the weasel hung out to dry just the same. Again as a reminder, about the being a hypocrite, not about infidelity. About being a proven liar.
Is it inbred in Celtic fans to think they are morally superior? At least the ones in the football forum leave it on the pitch.
It doesn't, but I could just as easily say, just because he can skin defenders and is rich, why can he twist the law for his own ends? Again, Morally we seem at loggerheads
It's not what I think is moral, if something is allowed by law then it's allowed whether we like it or not.
He is not my National captain either. Despite living in England most of my life, I believe we may share the same National captain.
You seem stridently to believe it's perfectly acceptable that liars and cheats should prosper. I thankfully, don't think that is a widely held view.
You appear to think the right of secrecy is sacrosanct, an odd stance in my world.
I don't think these people are right in cheating or lying about it. I just don't believe we have the legal right to know about it.
Actually the DO have the right and unless you and a large group of like minded individuals lobby to change it, it will remain. Thankfully, you don't have the right to piecemeal pick and choose which members of society can obey the custom and which can't.
Actually I'd allow legal aid so everyone has the right to privacy or give the PCC charter legally binding.
So what? You are right it's not the only criteria, but if thats the case, then they win another payday and their reputation is no worse off, since most already believe all footballers are at it. (I don't for the record)
One of the criteria for defamation in Scotland (we don't have libel/slander) is it must be damaging I'm sure some smart arse lawyer could argue that it isn't damaging for a premiership footballer to be accused of cheating. What about the if some who has cheated is falsely accused, or what if they're having a relationship with another man.
Libel isn't there to stop incorrect stories, it's there to stop damaging ones.
Finally something we agree on. The difference is, I worry that their twisting of the principle, may get a change brought about and those who need it MOST will suffer.
The only way I know I have these rights is if they have these rights.
Writing the book was the start of it, selling the rights to serialize to the newspapers is the major hypocrisy and very obviously, that IS coveting the front page.
If I didn't think your naive way of looking at things was so dangerous, I wouldn't bother arguing.
The PRINCIPLE of twisting and eroding the law should be fought on every front. We can't just allow indignant individuals pick and choose.
Although it was meant for a FAR more important historical issue, the phrases, "In a war, truth is the first casualty" and "All it takes for evil to prevail, is for good men to do nothing"
We're not at war, but in a society losing it privacy hand over fist, with cctv, internet surveillance and other things, the rich and famous should still be answerable to the same laws as you and I.
But like I say, I fear we have different morals and values.
Not understanding the law, along with believing if they say it, that makes it so is getting on a high horse, there is no other way to see it as far as I'm concerned.
I don't moralise at others, nor do I judge their values. We all have a right to privacy, whether it's someone on benefits or someone on £200,000 a week at Chelsea, whether they are squeaky clean or mired in dirt.
You have a point about losing our privacy, but stopping someone else's privacy is not the solution.
Hating what someone does not give us a right to know about it. Unless it is illegal.
Just a thought, a lot of times in this thread people have said that because people sell us part of their lives in OK, Hello we have a right to know the bad stuff, cheating etc. Couldn't they argue the reverse, people are going to think they worse, we need to show we're happy etc etc. I'm not saying it's rational, just it could be argued.
If I couldn't get an injunction to stop friends,neighbours or work colleagues finding out about something I've done, why the hell should a celebrity ? They're no different to the rest of ,just well known.
Technically if a newspaper wants to tell them about it you do have that right.
Im asking if youre so anti looking into or prying into celeb culture why youre posting on a showbiz forum, seems a bit hypocritical... as for ranting.. i did no such thing.. but we all see things differently dont we.. i merely asked you to explain why if i help maintain their lifestyles why you felt they need privacy, but you havent answered that?
My original post answered the point more than adequately; the private life of a person is of no concern to anyone apart from the person him/herself. To think you have a right to know is as absurd as it is unfair. Assuming you pay taxes, do you think it's your right to know every detail of everyone in receipt of, say, family allowance? Because that is the natural extension of the logic you're applying. If you are in receipt of any benefits, do you think I have the right to know everything about you? No, of course not. And yet, if the latter applied to you, I would be "maintaining your lifestyle" as you put it. So, pray tell, where is the difference?
But it seems very important to you to want to pry so, again, I find myself wondering why? And again reflecting that this kind of obsession with tittle-tattle is a cancer in our society.
Im asking if youre so anti looking into or prying into celeb culture why youre posting on a showbiz forum, seems a bit hypocritical... as for ranting.. i did no such thing.. but we all see things differently dont we.. i merely asked you to explain why if i help maintain their lifestyles why you felt they need privacy, but you havent answered that?
ill even quote you back to help you
youre very quick to pass judgement on the posters? but dont want it passed on you?
Again, I ask you to read my post carefully (something which, alas, seems beyond you). Nowhere do I pass judgement. I merely "suspect" something may be true - ergo, I'm putting forward an argument. There is a difference.
tiger woods also kept many of his sponsers and he will just replace those that he lost (and he lost those due to the sponsers kneejerking because of the outcry than the act.) because he is too big and everyon will have forgotten in 6-12 months.:)
The wags get to keep the money from their shoots. I'd understand if the footballers were all Joey Bartons, Lee Bowyers and any other unsavoury bigot/thug/convict but they're not..
I'd never buy anything St Gerrard (aka the Atomic Kitten thug) related.. because he is one player I seriously do not like.. and I don't support Liverpool.. if he is the face of something I happen to like then yeah I'd get it because I like the product but Steve's stuff would hardly be marketed at females soo..
I'd never buy anything St Gerrard (aka the Atomic Kitten thug) related.. because he is one player I seriously do not like.. and I don't support Liverpool.
Comments
Well said that judge and I agree with him 100%. It's a joke that *some* people are happy to sell every inch of their lives to us but start sobbing and run to the court if the media get hold of a negative story. If you sell your soul to the devil (the red tops and gossip mags in this case), you end up getting burnt.
Fine, if these players want a totally private life, then have one. Just don't push your wife into the public domain as a 'celeb' writing a column, appearing on a reality tv show or generally being famous for nothing more than who she's married to.
Great Quote
Exactly, the sad part about it is people will claim that its them that wants it and their fella's just sit back and leave them too it:D Doesnt a husband encourage his wife
All it is is talentless hacks who look for opportunities to drag down a player for having the nerve to be paid a ton of money for something they like doing and having an attractive partner. In Baden Baden, the wags went about their business shopping and the media followed them.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-404951/Tom-Jones-reveals-night-wife-beat-black-blue.html
I've not read all the article but I think it outlines some of his past.
You pay for the right to watch but that is all. The performance of anyone involved is not guaranteed nor is it implied. If any player is injured you cannot demand a partial refund therefore performance is irrelevant
Therefore we may want them to be a pinnacle of respectability but expecting a 21 year old semi literate uneducated thug who kicks a leatherlook plastic ball around for a living as some paragon of virtue is beyond reasonable expectation.
We have no 'right' to blur the public and private.We choose to do so as it allows us to be intrusive and nosy without any perceived guilty feelings...
Posters here make all kinds of outrageous judgments on various 'celebs' without knowing either the truth nor the person involved. They do so by using "They are in the public and as such it's my 'right' to abuse them" as if that somehow justifies their self centred vindictive nastiness. Well it doesn't wash with me that's for sure!
I suggest for future reference that you educate any kids you meet to enjoy their footballing skills but not to place too much emphasis on their social skills..
He was cleared of "beating up the DJ" whether he pleaded self defence or not. That is not to say everyone has their own interpretation of the video.
If a footballer or anyone else sets themselves up as a product, selling family based products based on his "perfect family" and then cheats and then tries to gag a newspaper.. is that not wrong?
Are we not entitled to be outraged by him taking the piss out of our hand earned money?
if the drama caused by an affair means hes off-form and our team lose? when hes earning in one match what we earn in a year are we not entitled to be angry about that?
Footballers and celebs are human yes, they muck up yes, we are judgemental yes.. but we're entitled to be as we've paid for the champagne theyre crying into in self pity in their cheshire mansions we also paid for as their wife gives them grief wearing a 100k ring, we also paid for.
But who has the right to judge? And why do you really want to know anyway? Because of some deep sense of morality or because of prurience? I suspect that for most people bleating about this, it is the latter.
The truth is that the private life of anyone - be it a celebrity or the cleaner where I work - is none of my bloody business or anyone else's. Frankly, they could people their beds with sheep for all I care. This obsession with celebrity tittle-tattle has cheapened and undermined our society over the past two decades.
Speak for yourself
They are.. a lot of them are.... a lot of wags bring in a lot of money to their husbands from photo shoots in OK and sponership deals.. a lot of sponsership deals on a personal basis have a "good moral code" attachement... as they are seen as people to look up to.
We are paying their wages with every ticket sale, every shirt sale, every pair of socks/footie boots they endorse... and youre claiming to speak for every person whose ever brought a ticket and supported a team.. you cant do that any more than I can say they agree with me... but basically to say you dont pay their wages is foolhardy. If you stop supporting the club, stop turning up and their gates drop, tv wont show their games, corporations wont want to sponser deals with teams no ones interested in.. commerical football is a dodgy field as has been proved with Everton/Notts county and their recent troubles with Quadbank.
Youre entitled to your opinion but youre posing on a showbiz forum, so get off your moral high horse, why are you posting on a showbiz forum but slagging people off who look into showbiz lives?
If i contribute to thier financial wellbeing then ive got a say, simple as if they dont like it? they can withdraw from public life cant they?
If you read my post again (carefully, I suggest this time) you'll see I have done no such thing; I merely posed a reasonable question. But I sense from your post that you are not someone who allows facts to get in the way of a good rant.
And in seemingly suggesting that I'm not entitled to post my opinion on a show business thread, do you not see that you're trying gag me? I presume you're unaware of the irony...
none of the above..
Im asking if youre so anti looking into or prying into celeb culture why youre posting on a showbiz forum, seems a bit hypocritical... as for ranting.. i did no such thing.. but we all see things differently dont we.. i merely asked you to explain why if i help maintain their lifestyles why you felt they need privacy, but you havent answered that?
ill even quote you back to help you
youre very quick to pass judgement on the posters? but dont want it passed on you?
Tiger Woods' sponsors disagree. They did care about his private life and many of them have dropped him.
Good point, many sports stars have lost lucrative deals over their personal misdemeanours
I never said I liked it, I said I have no legal right to know about it.
Yet you didn't answer it.
Is it a good thing, yes, do we have a legal right to it, no.
Is it inbred in Celtic fans to think they are morally superior? At least the ones in the football forum leave it on the pitch.
It's not what I think is moral, if something is allowed by law then it's allowed whether we like it or not.
I don't think these people are right in cheating or lying about it. I just don't believe we have the legal right to know about it.
Actually I'd allow legal aid so everyone has the right to privacy or give the PCC charter legally binding.
One of the criteria for defamation in Scotland (we don't have libel/slander) is it must be damaging I'm sure some smart arse lawyer could argue that it isn't damaging for a premiership footballer to be accused of cheating. What about the if some who has cheated is falsely accused, or what if they're having a relationship with another man.
Libel isn't there to stop incorrect stories, it's there to stop damaging ones.
The only way I know I have these rights is if they have these rights.
I don't moralise at others, nor do I judge their values. We all have a right to privacy, whether it's someone on benefits or someone on £200,000 a week at Chelsea, whether they are squeaky clean or mired in dirt.
You have a point about losing our privacy, but stopping someone else's privacy is not the solution.
Hating what someone does not give us a right to know about it. Unless it is illegal.
Just a thought, a lot of times in this thread people have said that because people sell us part of their lives in OK, Hello we have a right to know the bad stuff, cheating etc. Couldn't they argue the reverse, people are going to think they worse, we need to show we're happy etc etc. I'm not saying it's rational, just it could be argued.
Technically if a newspaper wants to tell them about it you do have that right.
My original post answered the point more than adequately; the private life of a person is of no concern to anyone apart from the person him/herself. To think you have a right to know is as absurd as it is unfair. Assuming you pay taxes, do you think it's your right to know every detail of everyone in receipt of, say, family allowance? Because that is the natural extension of the logic you're applying. If you are in receipt of any benefits, do you think I have the right to know everything about you? No, of course not. And yet, if the latter applied to you, I would be "maintaining your lifestyle" as you put it. So, pray tell, where is the difference?
But it seems very important to you to want to pry so, again, I find myself wondering why? And again reflecting that this kind of obsession with tittle-tattle is a cancer in our society.
Again, I ask you to read my post carefully (something which, alas, seems beyond you). Nowhere do I pass judgement. I merely "suspect" something may be true - ergo, I'm putting forward an argument. There is a difference.
The wags get to keep the money from their shoots. I'd understand if the footballers were all Joey Bartons, Lee Bowyers and any other unsavoury bigot/thug/convict but they're not..
I'd never buy anything St Gerrard (aka the Atomic Kitten thug) related.. because he is one player I seriously do not like.. and I don't support Liverpool.. if he is the face of something I happen to like then yeah I'd get it because I like the product but Steve's stuff would hardly be marketed at females soo..
That surprises me given your username.