From this weeks Popbitch

Which frog-faced impresario and noted hater of the poor is hatching plans to spawn further? He has had his sperm frozen at a London clinic.

I

This isn't really my normal area, but a couple of thoughts on the 'big story' in the papers at the moment...

A lot of it revolves around how he presents himself as a family man, and uses his family to promote himself etc. I don't really see that side of him, or is it a reference to his most famous role ?

Generally speaking, though, there really is no public interest here, is there ? Apart from people liking to have a giggle at him paying to have things shoved up his bum, there really is nothing more serious to it and really should be private. Even if you pay a prostitute, there should be an expectation that it is a confidential transaction.

As I said previously you could say that to most expose' stories. Where is the difference between this and Ryan Giggs, Vernon Kay, Wayne Rooney, John Terry / Wayne Bridge, Jamie Theakston, Frank Bough, etc, etc.

People involved in such transactions should be allowed to tell their side of the story, I suppose it is different if both parties want to keep it quiet. I would not like the situation where rich and powerful people can buy privacy to cover up embarrassments.

The public decide if it is news worthy by buying the publication or not. Nothing worse than the establishment deciding what we can and cannot read about, especially when other members if the public elsewhere are free to do so.

I wouldn't like to be in the paper for some silly thing I don't think its right

You don't have to read it though. Don't do wrong and chances you won't be in there. Don't go asking strange ladies to stick things up your bottom.

Even if you did, chances are it would not be printed as nobody is interested in reading about us plebs, we want to read about celebs and what they are like behind closed doors behind the PR spin.

There is a thread on here about famous people and what they are really like to those who have met them, we have this showbiz gossip thread where we speculate and another thread about the sexulaity of stars. No difference in that and a story in a paper really.

Everyone should have the right to tell their side of the story. An editor will decide if it worth printing and the public will decide if they want to pay and read it. The person concerned will decide of it is libellous and if to sue.

That's life

Why shouldnt I be allowed to have a lady put something up my bum in privacy? Is no one entitled to a private life?

But does that not beg the very serious question of why what an actor has done with a hooker an actor who is not using his status to promote the sanctity of marriage and fidelity etc etc is deemed in the public interest and why a government minister who was in a positon to make very big changes in the media when he was seeing prostitutes and a porn star and being indiscreet with government papers is deemed to be entitled to a private life and the stories not in the public interest ? I think we all know why and it is not only unfair it is to my mind corrupt.

I don't think you can expect ethics from the press I'm afraid. I'd be more concerned about the ethics of the law. Of course the tabloids are guilty of hypocrisy for demanding the right to print certain stories 'in the public interest' whilst ignoring those that don't suit them (consider London's own newspaper not putting the mayoral election on the front page!). They can use 'public interest' as a defence but even they probably wouldn't claim that is the motivation for everything they do. Ultimately their motivation is sales/profit or the agenda of the owner.

I think you're quite right in that the good people of Chichester could care less.

However, sometime in the very near future it's going to be front-page news when it all comes out in Britain. Is the producer of the play going to think that the adverse news will affect the performance/reputation/takings? Only time will tell.

BTW did anyone read TMS on page 11 of The Times today? Someone is bursting to be able to say "I dropped you all a hint" in the future

The press are behaving like spoilt brats......we want to tell you something juicy but we can't.....we love wrecking people's reputations......but a nasty judge won't let us.....

Kiss and tells were big in the 1980s and 1990s......but they are so tiresome now.....

If people want to know they can Google it very easily, there is no need for the UK press to make cash from someone else's private life......

A reminder that anyone giving overly obvious "hints", soliciting PMs for reveals or outright posting names of those under injunctions will have their posting privileges revoked. Don't do it.

I didn't mean the public who happen to live there, I meant the people at CFT. This all happened years ago and has been public knowledge for years. No one working on the production or at CFT cares. I doubt the kind of people who travel long distances to see an Ibsen play would be put off by tabloid kiss'n'tell scandals.

From CDAN:

Kindness Blind

This B- mostly television actress wife of an A+ mostly movie actor did something very sweet. Two women were ahead of her in line at a toy store and were paying with cash. They were digging around in their purses and wallets because they were like $2 short on about a $200 purchase. Our actress pulled out a credit card and insisted she pay for the whole thing. Not just the $2. The entire purchase.

No idea but a nice story anyway.

Ally McBeal?

You find it tiresome perhaps, others don't. I always find it strange people who moan about press intrusion and that private affairs should stay private, whilst posting on a gossip thread that exposes such things.

Is it right the courts can threaten someone with jail for telling the truth / their side of the story, just because some who is powerful, has money, or Both, can buy privacy at the courts.

I would rather support free speech rather than supporting the gagging of the press. Don't like it, don't buy it, thepublic decides, why should a court dictate what we can and cannot read? Madness when people living in other countries can.

Who was the 'celebrity female figure of trust' who had an injunction granted last May over an affair with a 'very high profile married lover'

Trusted is a strange one to use, you think politician's but celebrity is used. Newsreader, talk show host?

I think of the strictly participant and ex bbc morning presenter. Did she split with her husband last year and famously flirted in an interview with golden balls?

There's no super injunction in these cases, just injunctions.

What if the real father doesn't want to know? More heartache for the poor kid.

The new Batman's ex who he still lives with.

Do you really think that comments like these are appropriate?

I certainly don't.

The music of the night.

What?? They still live together?? Colour me surprised but the story checks out

With a big house and small children it's practical. Particularly given the nature of their work - odd hours, travel.

He does have a butler and an underground cavern full of gadgets though