|
||||||||
100% ALLEGED Showbiz, Blind Items and Gossip Thread (Part 5) |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#351 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,106
|
Quote:
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.
Newspapers are slowly dying and being made fools of on the web regarding the story. Breaking an injunction would be costly but could deter others from applying in future if they demonstrated willingness to defy the courts regardless. (Disclaimer: I am not actually encouraging anyone to break a court order). I think the Celebrity in question has handled the story incredibly badly. At worst it would have been a week's embarrassment quickly forgotten, instead the story has gone on for months and is known to the entire world, including people like myself who probably wouldn't have paid it any attention otherwise. They have also ensured the lifelong enmity of the UK press for him and his partner who will go after them for the slightest misstep or dirt in future. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#352 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,655
|
Quote:
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..
Its cementing a two tier legal system, those with money to pay for it can censor the press, those without the means to pay barristers, lawyers and high court fees don't. Does the law not exist to protect all citizens equally? Or is it only the rich ones can get "justice". |
|
|
|
|
|
#353 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 23,309
|
Am I wrong here, or is this upholding of the injunction just a temporary continuation of the judgement before a full hearing is held to decide if the press gets to name names?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#354 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,153
|
Delivering the court’s judgment by a four-to-one majority, Lord Mance said there was no public interest in naming PJS and that revealing details of the affair would breach the family’s privacy.
“Publication of the story would infringe privacy rights of PJS, his partner and their children,” he said. “… There is no public interest, however much it may be of interest to some members of the public, in publishing kiss-and-tell stories or criticisms of private sexual conduct, simply because the persons involved are well-known; and so there is no right to invade privacy by publishing them. “It is different if the story has some bearing on the performance of a public office or the correction of a misleading public impression cultivated by the person involved. But … that does not apply here.” The Independent Press Standards Code, to which the Sun on Sunday subscribes, Mance noted, requires editors to demonstrate an exceptional public interest to override the “normally paramount interests of the children”. http://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/...ome-injunction There is no exceptional public interest in this story, just prurient interest by some members of the public and an agenda by the newspaper to continue as they have in the past pre Leveson. The fact that it has been printed in other jurisdictions is irrelevant. The press have a duty to abide by the decisions of the court and to adhere to their own industry's standards code. If the injunction is eventually lifted it would send a message to the tabloids that they can wind the clock back to pre-leveson times and invade peoples privacy when ever it suits their agenda. |
|
|
|
|
|
#355 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,153
|
Quote:
Am I wrong here, or is this upholding of the injunction just a temporary continuation of the judgement before a full hearing is held to decide if the press gets to name names?
![]() The supreme court judge yesterday said The supreme court justices said that in their balancing exercise – weighing up the conflicting interest of article 10 of the European convention on human rights, guaranteeing freedom of expression, and article 8, guaranteeing privacy – they believed that at any full trial of the issue the injunction would be likely to be upheld. |
|
|
|
|
|
#356 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 264
|
I want per Leveson times! Shut the whinging lefties celebs up. People enjoy reading it as people here enjoy reading the blinds and the gossip threads. Difference is you choose your newspaper and pay to read it.
Don't misbehave, don't get written about. |
|
|
|
|
|
#357 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,279
|
Quote:
I want per Leveson times! Shut the whinging lefties celebs up. People enjoy reading it as people here enjoy reading the blinds and the gossip threads. Difference is you choose your newspaper and pay to read it.
Don't misbehave, don't get written about. |
|
|
|
|
|
#358 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,655
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiery Phoenix;82454400[B
]I want per Leveson times! Shut the whinging lefties [/b]celebs up. People enjoy reading it as people here enjoy reading the blinds and the gossip threads. Difference is you choose your newspaper and pay to read it.
Don't misbehave, don't get written about. |
|
|
|
|
|
#359 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Fandango Mansion
Posts: 3,218
|
Quote:
Who defines what misbehaviour is though?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#360 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,655
|
Quote:
It's anything you wouldn't want your mother to see you doing. Or at least that's what my mother told me.
![]()
|
|
|
|
|
|
#361 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 22,432
|
Quote:
I want per Leveson times! Shut the whinging lefties celebs up. People enjoy reading it as people here enjoy reading the blinds and the gossip threads. Difference is you choose your newspaper and pay to read it.
Don't misbehave, don't get written about. |
|
|
|
|
|
#362 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 6,486
|
Quote:
I want per Leveson times! Shut the whinging lefties celebs up. People enjoy reading it as people here enjoy reading the blinds and the gossip threads. Difference is you choose your newspaper and pay to read it.
Don't misbehave, don't get written about. I would understand this thought process, if someone was injured, in danger or laws were broken. But that's not the case here. A man had sex with someone else than his spouse, for whatever reason, no one was hurt, all were adults and willing participants. Why does it matter to the public at all? Because it's outside the norm and their moral stand? |
|
|
|
|
|
#363 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 22,432
|
From CDAN:
I did not think dropping acid was a thing that was all that popular right now, but this Hunger Games actor who has not had much luck outside the franchise definitely did just that before heading from a restroom back into the restaurant where he was dining in. |
|
|
|
|
|
#364 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 264
|
I wonder if it was The Mirror would some of the auto tabloid bashing be just as bad. Or is it the anti Murdoch brigade? Given that the Mirror Group did widespread hacking on a worse scale than News International I find it strange they are somehow forgotten about. That's make me think it on more of an anti Murdoch attack.
Basically it says privacy can be purchased. It is absolutely farcical that others can read about it in publications abroad...he'll even Scotland, but not in England. It is ridiculous and not in the spirit of a free democratic press. The other party in the matter should have the absolute right to tell his side of the story without thre threat of jail. That is draconian and something you would read aboutn a third world country let alone the UK |
|
|
|
|
|
#365 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Not Kansas anymore...
Posts: 16,930
|
^^ Oh dear, I thought they were quite grounded actors. The competitor rather than the love interest, maybe? Haven't seen him in much since, whereas Thor's brother seems to do fairly well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#366 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,153
|
Quote:
I wonder if it was The Mirror would some of the auto tabloid bashing be just as bad. Or is it the anti Murdoch brigade? Given that the Mirror Group did widespread hacking on a worse scale than News International I find it strange they are somehow forgotten about. That's make me think it on more of an anti Murdoch attack.
Basically it says privacy can be purchased. It is absolutely farcical that others can read about it in publications abroad...he'll even Scotland, but not in England. It is ridiculous and not in the spirit of a free democratic press. The other party in the matter should have the absolute right to tell his side of the story without thre threat of jail. That is draconian and something you would read aboutn a third world country let alone the UK |
|
|
|
|
|
#367 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 10,592
|
Quote:
I wonder if it was The Mirror would some of the auto tabloid bashing be just as bad. Or is it the anti Murdoch brigade? Given that the Mirror Group did widespread hacking on a worse scale than News International I find it strange they are somehow forgotten about. That's make me think it on more of an anti Murdoch attack.
Basically it says privacy can be purchased. It is absolutely farcical that others can read about it in publications abroad...he'll even Scotland, but not in England. It is ridiculous and not in the spirit of a free democratic press. The other party in the matter should have the absolute right to tell his side of the story without thre threat of jail. That is draconian and something you would read aboutn a third world country let alone the UK As for public figures stuff like this could get printed as it's in the public interest. PM / Judges etc. Thing is the folks who buy this salacious gossip in the most part couldn't care less about threesomes involving Judges. They don't adorn the celebrity pages. So tabloids aren't bothered to even print it. Certainly not splash it across front pages. |
|
|
|
|
|
#368 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,655
|
Quote:
Who decides what is considered misbehaving? That's a dangerous thought, actually, having selected people act as a moral police and decide that other people's morales aren't to their standards. Why should people know about consented sex between adults?
I would understand this thought process, if someone was injured, in danger or laws were broken. But that's not the case here. A man had sex with someone else than his spouse, for whatever reason, no one was hurt, all were adults and willing participants. Why does it matter to the public at all? Because it's outside the norm and their moral stand? I don't think so. Justice is supposed to be blind, rich or poor, man or woman etc, etc we are all supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law. |
|
|
|
|
|
#369 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 10,592
|
Quote:
Imagine for a moment if the couple in this case were among any number of celebs who have a history of allowing the press access to their kids for publicity. Say this happened to Katy Price and Peter Andre when they were together. Would their argument that they wanted to spare their children embarrassment be upheld? What about the Beckhams?
I don't think so. Justice is supposed to be blind, rich or poor, man or woman etc, etc we are all supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law. |
|
|
|
|
|
#370 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,655
|
Quote:
In which case the circumstances would be looked at when application for injunction received. Isn't this scenario just ridiculous though Katie Price flogs her sex life to highest bidder. She'd be the one selling the story.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#371 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,850
|
Quote:
The other party in the matter should have the absolute right to tell his side of the story without thre threat of jail. That is draconian and something you would read aboutn a third world country let alone the UK This is not what happened in this case. The married famous man involved would not have told the press so the story would not have been in the press at all if it were not for the kiss and tell man. it would only be in the press because somebody is greedy and wanted money. The person selling the story is in the wrong in this case. While I agree that it is dangerous to gag the press too much I think it is also dangerous to have no rules to adhere to. We have seen even with rules newspapers have went to extreme lengths to print stories including putting recording devices in people's hotel rooms etc. So with no rules there would be no limits. It is a slippery slope. We could end up with papers printing names of celeb abuse victims or something using the excuses 'it'll come out anyway' or that certain sections of the public would be interested in this stories I.e. Abuse victims/charities. Etc this wouldn't be fair. We should only print something if is is legally or morally dubious. This is not true in this case as everyone involved consented including the 'cheated on' party. |
|
|
|
|
|
#372 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,850
|
Quote:
^^ Oh dear, I thought they were quite grounded actors. The competitor rather than the love interest, maybe? Haven't seen him in much since, whereas Thor's brother seems to do fairly well.
Or do you mean a competitor in the games themselves? There is only one who would fit and that would be the Last one standing in the first games with the two main leads. From district 2. I can't see it being the one played by the British riot club actor as he seems too normal and is married with a baby etc. His new movie with Dany from GOT is also getting a lot of hype. |
|
|
|
|
|
#373 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Leicester!!!
Posts: 13,032
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#374 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cuddling Nel with Denim&Du-Vay
Posts: 1,672
|
Quote:
The article mentions his 'tightness" with money, I can think of two superstar stars who are thought of as tight and I believe one of them either did or may still does have a home in the area the court case was heard. |
|
|
|
|
#375 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 180
|
Quote:
I would have thought he would have had enough with a loopy ex wife, now a questionable niece ... |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 18:56.




