DS Forums

 
 

100% ALLEGED Showbiz, Blind Items and Gossip Thread (Part 5)


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 18-05-2016, 20:24
ftv
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 31,434
Is that not Rocketman?

Everyone waiting for the High Court to over turn injunction, nothing happened yet.
Decision tomorrow from the Supreme Court
ftv is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 19-05-2016, 06:19
FingersAndToes
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 6,486
I hope we never find out who the niece is.
FingersAndToes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2016, 06:25
AdelaideGirl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,146
I hope we never find out who the niece is.
Me too. We have no right or need to know.
AdelaideGirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2016, 06:56
FilliA
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 784
Pretty Woman's niece I'm guessing?
Hard to see her flirting with a butcher in Sussex though.o(as the defendant claims)
FilliA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2016, 08:01
nojunkmail
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: The Pool
Posts: 1,350
Hard to see her flirting with a butcher in Sussex though.o(as the defendant claims)
Is it not her uncle who is famous?
nojunkmail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2016, 08:55
dee123
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 22,432
Is it not her uncle who is famous?
Her father is an actor and he probably did his best work in the late 70's and early 80's. His sister is A+ list till the day she dies.
dee123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2016, 09:11
donna255
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Belfast
Posts: 3,409
If she wins or loses when the case is over usually the papers get the name.
donna255 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2016, 09:37
wildhollie
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: U.K.
Posts: 2,632
I see the injunction has been upheld...how ridiculous, it's not as if no-one knows who they are now
wildhollie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2016, 09:59
Aurora13
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 10,592
I see the injunction has been upheld...how ridiculous, it's not as if no-one knows who they are now
It's now about stopping tabloids making this a headline story. It's no longer about the facts of the story but about the tabloids and their sensationalist agenda.
Aurora13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2016, 10:05
AdelaideGirl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,146
It's now aybout stopping tabloids making this a headline story. It's no longer about the facts of the story but about the tabloids and their sensationalist agenda.
Also given the age of their kids - keeping them from finding out right now. They aren't likely to be looking on the internet but avoiding tabloid front pages is not so easy.
AdelaideGirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2016, 10:10
Aurora13
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 10,592
Also given the age of their kids - keeping them from finding out right now. They aren't likely to be looking on the internet but avoiding tabloid front pages is not so easy.
Finding out a story via internet or indeed for most people only who the injunction applies to is very different to relentless tabloid coverage that then is blasted across tv screens.
Aurora13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2016, 10:21
Fiery Phoenix
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 264
It's now about stopping tabloids making this a headline story. It's no longer about the facts of the story but about the tabloids and their sensationalist agenda.
Disagree. Sets a dangerous precedent where rich and powerful, not just celeb, can gag the media and stop people telling their side of the story,even threatening them with jail for breaking the injunction.

Is it fair those in other countries are allowed to readily read the articles? This is a slap in the face for free speech. Whether you think this is just title tattle over sexulaity exploits, there is the bigger picture at play here. Rocketman today, Cameron tomorrow? Who knows. All about keeping the plebs in the dark.

Those supporting this in my eyes are deluded. What will TPTB wants to stop reading next? Internet forums? To even make some providers block search results on search engines is a draconian measure in the 21st century

What keeps a look powerful people on the straight and narrow is the thought of being exposed in the press. Remove that and we should all be worried.
Fiery Phoenix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2016, 10:22
FingersAndToes
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 6,486
Finding out a story via internet or indeed for most people only who the injunction applies to is very different to relentless tabloid coverage that then is blasted across tv screens.
Had the injunction been lifted, the UK press would've been relentless and horrid with their coverage as a payback. I'm still of the opinion, that it's no one else's business, IMO most of these kiss and tells are pointless gossip fodder, and serve no public interest.
FingersAndToes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2016, 10:28
Fiery Phoenix
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 264
Had the injunction been lifted, the UK press would've been relentless and horrid with their coverage as a payback. I'm still of the opinion, that it's no one else's business, IMO most of these kiss and tells are pointless gossip fodder, and serve no public interest.
Says the person on a gossip thread!

So any story should not be told if there are kids in the background? No Ryan Giggs story? No Rebecca Loos / Beckham story? No coverage of any divorces? No cheating? Nothing?

The public decide if something is newsworthy by buying the publication and reading it and discussing it. Too many people feel that showbiz stories or kiss and tells are beneath them, a snobbish attitude in reality.

Hey, let's all read the broadsheets and financial times. If so, there would not be much to discuss on here as a lot is from the tabloid media
Fiery Phoenix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2016, 10:30
Aurora13
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 10,592

Disagree. Sets a dangerous precedent where rich and powerful, not just celeb, can gag the media and stop people telling their side of the story,even threatening them with jail for breaking the injunction.

Is it fair those in other countries are allowed to readily read the articles? This is a slap in the face for free speech. Whether you think this is just title tattle over sexulaity exploits, there is the bigger picture at play here. Rocketman today, Cameron tomorrow? Who knows. All about keeping the plebs in the dark.

Those supporting this in my eyes are deluded. What will TPTB wants to stop reading next? Internet forums? To even make some providers block search results on search engines is a draconian measure in the 21st century

What keeps a look powerful people on the straight and narrow is the thought of being exposed in the press. Remove that and we should all be worried.
As you have been told time and time again because something may be of interest to public (you) doesn't make it in the public interest.

You fail to grasp that celebrities are not public figures who have an impact on our lives. If this story was about an MP or a judge no injunction would have been granted. You talk about powerful people not grasping that this story is about celebrity salacious gossip nothing more nothing less.
Aurora13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2016, 10:45
dodrade
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,106
If the appeal is lost I wouldn't rule out a publish and be damned strategy by Murdoch (as with the patently false "Queen backs brexit headline), perhaps even Co-ordinated across the press. The story itself is relatively minor but they will do everything they can to stop a precedent being set.
dodrade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2016, 10:50
Aurora13
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 10,592
If the appeal is lost I wouldn't rule out a publish and be damned strategy by Murdoch (as with the patently false "Queen backs brexit headline), perhaps even Co-ordinated across the press. The story itself is relatively minor but they will do everything they can to stop a precedent being set.
Supreme Court are following the law. It's not a new precedent. It's the tabloids who are attempting to say that that they can print anything about anyone and public interest test no longer applies.
Aurora13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2016, 10:55
nojunkmail
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: The Pool
Posts: 1,350
Her father is an actor and he probably did his best work in the late 70's and early 80's. His sister is A+ list till the day she dies.
Where are you seeing it's her aunt? The Sun is saying it's her uncle who is the global superstar.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...ed-victim.html
nojunkmail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2016, 11:14
nomad2king
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,604
It's now about stopping tabloids making this a headline story. It's no longer about the facts of the story but about the tabloids and their sensationalist agenda.
And wanting to make money out it. It would just give prostitutes an additional income from the media. "This Morning" on ITV would probably have them on for a whole week and might even make them a regular presenter. They do seem to feature a lot of women selling sex stories of one sort or another.

If the nonsense justification of "people in other countries can know" is applied, would that also potentially mean that rape victims could be named?
nomad2king is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2016, 11:24
pixieboots
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,655
As you have been told time and time again because something may be of interest to public (you) doesn't make it in the public interest.

You fail to grasp that celebrities are not public figures who have an impact on our lives. If this story was about an MP or a judge no injunction would have been granted. You talk about powerful people not grasping that this story is about celebrity salacious gossip nothing more nothing less.
Well that's not strictly true is it? Bono addressing the G7, Angelina having the ears of prominent politicians. Lord LLoyd Webber flying back to vote on Osborne's bill to cut tax credits for the poor when he doesn't bother to sit in the Lords the rest of the time. The lines between celebrity and power are more blurred now than ever. Lloyd Webber was given that peerage because of his celebrity. I agree with Fiery, its a very dangerous precedent to set unless legal aid is given to every citizen who wishes to do the same. I'm not a big fan of intrusive tabloids but this is a serious erosion of the notion that justice is for all, it isn't any more. Justice is only available for those who can afford the massive legal fees to pay for it. Don't get me started on Cameron and his buddies Brooks and Clarkson or Blair and his trail of celeb sycophants.

If you don't want your kids to know you're an adulterous swinger then how about not actually doing any adulterous swinging whilst you and your spouse give interviews about how solid and committed your relationship is. Much simpler than setting dangerous legal precedents.
I couldn't care less if they have an open marriage but to use your kids as an excuse for keeping your family life private when you do photospreads and interviews galore about your family life that feature your kids is ridiculous.
There are loads of celebs whose kids are never pictured and they don't even speak about them in interviews, if one of those celebs took an injunction I would say fair enough but that is not the case here at all.
pixieboots is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2016, 11:26
FingersAndToes
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 6,486
Says the person on a gossip thread!

So any story should not be told if there are kids in the background? No Ryan Giggs story? No Rebecca Loos / Beckham story? No coverage of any divorces? No cheating? Nothing?

The public decide if something is newsworthy by buying the publication and reading it and discussing it. Too many people feel that showbiz stories or kiss and tells are beneath them, a snobbish attitude in reality.

Hey, let's all read the broadsheets and financial times. If so, there would not be much to discuss on here as a lot is from the tabloid media
A married couple have an open relationship, are seemingly fine with occasional 3some. Why should and would that be anyone else's business but the couples? Why would public need to know about it? No one was harmed, no laws were broken.

Newspapers and tabloids have very little responsibility in what they publish. They can make up a total fabricated story, publish it, and IF the person they wrote about rebutes their story, they usually get away with a rebuttal and apology, which never get as much attention as the initial scandalous story.
FingersAndToes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2016, 11:57
Vicky0uk
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: London
Posts: 1,395
A married couple have an open relationship, are seemingly fine with occasional 3some. Why should and would that be anyone else's business but the couples? Why would public need to know about it? No one was harmed, no laws were broken.
Agree. The impression the couple has always given to me is that they are in a committed relationship but they're fine with other people getting involved.

And they aren't being hypocritical either since all parties were consenting. A couple can swing and still be solid and love each other. People can be poly and still love and be committed to one another.

(I couldn't but that's me and my relationship)
Vicky0uk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2016, 12:06
pixieboots
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,655
Agree. The impression the couple has always given to me is that they are in a committed relationship but they're fine with other people getting involved.

And they aren't being hypocritical either since all parties were consenting. A couple can swing and still be solid and love each other. People can be poly and still love and be committed to one another.

(I couldn't but that's me and my relationship)
Yes they can but as celebs who wheel their kids out for photoshoots and thus create a market for stories of their family life they shouldn't be able to hide behind their children and use their embarrassment as an excuse for not publishing it. The arrogance of this pair is breathtaking.
Its not the same as Mr and Mrs Bloggs (or Mrs and Mrs Bloggs or Mr and Mr Bloggs) who are minding their own business in private and having their threesomes discreetly so their children wont suffer embarrassment, not the same at all.
pixieboots is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2016, 12:07
Aurora13
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 10,592
Well that's not strictly true is it? Bono addressing the G7, Angelina having the ears of prominent politicians. Lord LLoyd Webber flying back to vote on Osborne's bill to cut tax credits for the poor when he doesn't bother to sit in the Lords the rest of the time. The lines between celebrity and power are more blurred now than ever. Lloyd Webber was given that peerage because of his celebrity. I agree with Fiery, its a very dangerous precedent to set unless legal aid is given to every citizen who wishes to do the same. I'm not a big fan of intrusive tabloids but this is a serious erosion of the notion that justice is for all, it isn't any more. Justice is only available for those who can afford the massive legal fees to pay for it. Don't get me started on Cameron and his buddies Brooks and Clarkson or Blair and his trail of celeb sycophants.

If you don't want your kids to know you're an adulterous swinger then how about not actually doing any adulterous swinging whilst you and your spouse give interviews about how solid and committed your relationship is. Much simpler than setting dangerous legal precedents.
I couldn't care less if they have an open marriage but to use your kids as an excuse for keeping your family life private when you do photospreads and interviews galore about your family life that feature your kids is ridiculous.
There are loads of celebs whose kids are never pictured and they don't even speak about them in interviews, if one of those celebs took an injunction I would say fair enough but that is not the case here at all.
What is all this nonsense about new legal precedents? Is this the latest tabloid lie? Supreme Court is applying the law. Tabloids are attempting to to say that because of internet they can print anything about anyone. It doesn't matter that it is a purely personal matter and has no impact on anyone they are fair game to exploit..
Aurora13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2016, 12:11
Aurora13
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 10,592
Yes they can but as celebs who wheel their kids out for photoshoots and thus create a market for stories of their family life they shouldn't be able to hide behind their children and use their embarrassment as an excuse for not publishing it. The arrogance of this pair is breathtaking.
Its not the same as Mr and Mrs Bloggs (or Mrs and Mrs Bloggs or Mr and Mr Bloggs) who are minding their own business in private and having their threesomes discreetly so their children wont suffer embarrassment, not the same at all.
The court has ruled that this couple have not sold to the public a lifestyle at all. A few paps getting piccies every now and then is not selling lifestyle. Aren't the kids faces pixilated anyway?
Aurora13 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 18:57.