DS Forums

 
 

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


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 19-05-2016, 16:28
Leicester_Hunk
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Leicester!!!
Posts: 13,032
I think LatinLou is on the same wavelength as me.

I would have thought he would have had enough with a loopy ex wife, now a questionable niece ...
And his bad hair .............

It could be any one of three girls.
Leicester_Hunk is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 19-05-2016, 17:34
andy1231
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 3,464
I wonder what would happen if for example a newspaper printed "we are not allowed to reveal this celebrities identity, but here is a link to an internet site that reveals all" ?
andy1231 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2016, 17:57
Gloria Fandango
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Fandango Mansion
Posts: 3,218
I think LatinLou is on the same wavelength as me.

I would have thought he would have had enough with a loopy ex wife, now a questionable niece ...
Could I have a clue to the wealthy ex, please?
Gloria Fandango is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2016, 18:00
codeblue
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: A Sound Expert
Posts: 13,881
Could I have a clue to the wealthy ex, please?
no chance, lets not go down that road, its windy!
codeblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2016, 18:13
Aurora13
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 10,592
I wonder what would happen if for example a newspaper printed "we are not allowed to reveal this celebrities identity, but here is a link to an internet site that reveals all" ?
They want to make money that wouldn't make them money. They aren't wanting to run this for altruistic reasons.
Aurora13 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2016, 18:19
Heatherbell
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Scotland .
Posts: 5,654
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.
That's simply not true though .
If the person is fronting a campaign promoting safe sex and is happy to constantly push that agenda by funding it and raising funds AND naming it in his own honour then it's hypocritical of the person to be involved in an open marriage where one or other partner is NOT taking the very precautions that they are happy to lecture everyone else on .
I'm all for privacy in the normal circumstances , but sometimes those screaming and paying for privacy are being huge hypocrites . As in this case , in my opinion .
If the foundation wasn't involved then I'd say "So what ? It's worth a curtain twitch or two, but really their own business " .As it is I think they are HUGE hypocrites and those contributing or raising funds in their name can't be happy . Well I wouldn't be , that's for sure .
Heatherbell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2016, 18:20
Leicester_Hunk
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Leicester!!!
Posts: 13,032
Could I have a clue to the wealthy ex, please?
She often gets legless.
Leicester_Hunk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2016, 18:21
Leicester_Hunk
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Leicester!!!
Posts: 13,032
The uncle has only one brother who has three daughters, one of them lives in the area in question
Leicester_Hunk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2016, 18:25
silentNate
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Council Estate
Posts: 35,535
That's simply not true though .
If the person is fronting a campaign promoting safe sex and is happy to constantly push that agenda by funding it and raising funds AND naming it in his own honour then it's hypocritical of the person to be involved in an open marriage where one or other partner is NOT taking the very precautions that they are happy to lecture everyone else on .
I'm all for privacy in the normal circumstances , but sometimes those screaming and paying for privacy are being huge hypocrites . As in this case , in my opinion .
If the foundation wasn't involved then I'd say "So what ? It's worth a curtain twitch or two, but really their own business " .As it is I think they are HUGE hypocrites and those contributing or raising funds in their name can't be happy . Well I wouldn't be , that's for sure .
What?? You crazy bro... that is exactly who you want to be promoting safe sex
silentNate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2016, 20:16
TheDC
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 667
Its ridiculous just one click on google and it brings up photos of the papers from Scotland that printed this!
TheDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2016, 20:18
TheDC
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 667
http://pettygripes.com/discussion/10...tion-threesome

Its ridiculous just one click on google and it brings up photos of the papers from Scotland that printed this!
TheDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2016, 20:29
viva.espana
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 3,012
That's simply not true though . If the person is fronting a campaign promoting safe sex and is happy to constantly push that agenda by funding it and raising funds AND naming it in his own honour then it's hypocritical of the person to be involved in an open marriage where one or other partner is NOT taking the very precautions that they are happy to lecture everyone else on .
I'm all for privacy in the normal circumstances , but sometimes those screaming and paying for privacy are being huge hypocrites . As in this case , in my opinion .
If the foundation wasn't involved then I'd say "So what ? It's worth a curtain twitch or two, but really their own business " .As it is I think they are HUGE hypocrites and those contributing or raising funds in their name can't be happy . Well I wouldn't be , that's for sure .
^ Not taking precautions? Do you have evidence or a link to back this up?
viva.espana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-05-2016, 23:27
Fiery Phoenix
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 264
^ Not taking precautions? Do you have evidence or a link to back this up?
A sworn affidavit was provided by the person wishing to tell their story, stating that this was the case. This is sworn under oath and you are at risk of perjury, i.e. prison, if found to be false.

Great front page on tomorrow's (Friday's) Daily Mail with a celeb singer and his husband gushing about their perfect marriage. The timing is great......
Fiery Phoenix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-05-2016, 00:47
AoibheannRose
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,228
A sworn affidavit was provided by the person wishing to tell their story, stating that this was the case. This is sworn under oath and you are at risk of perjury, i.e. prison, if found to be false.

Great front page on tomorrow's (Friday's) Daily Mail with a celeb singer and his husband gushing about their perfect marriage. The timing is great......
This is the article.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...sed-David.html

It's genius, especially the last line...
AoibheannRose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-05-2016, 06:54
Ellie1967
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,727
This is the article.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...sed-David.html

It's genius, especially the last line...


All they've achieved with this is to paint massive targets on their backs for the press and pretty much everyone not living in a cave with no internet access knows anyway (probably including their children and/or their friends who they are supposedly so worried about embarrassing). Surely any celeb in future would see what a waste of money it is to do this.
Ellie1967 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-05-2016, 07:14
Fiery Phoenix
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 264
This is why I bloody love our press. What a sad and boring World it would be without them. Bravo Mail!
Fiery Phoenix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-05-2016, 08:17
Theo Rose
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: West London
Posts: 2,038
I hate The Daily Mail but their front page today is just LOL
Theo Rose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-05-2016, 08:58
adams66
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: uk
Posts: 3,703
This is the article.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...sed-David.html

It's genius, especially the last line...
Isn't that the most wonderfully OTT piece ever?
Sadly the article is not accepting any reader comments.
Strange really, the Mail usually only does that with contentious and controversial stories, and this clearly isn't, seeing it's about such a loving and united family.
adams66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-05-2016, 09:10
pfgpowell
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,921
I wonder what would happen if for example a newspaper printed "we are not allowed to reveal this celebrities identity, but here is a link to an internet site that reveals all" ?
They would be hammered by the courts for contempt. Lawyers aren't daft. But a similar tack is sometimes used by the 'respectable broadsheets' - Telegraph, Times and Guardian - when the red tops come out with some scurrilous story about a celeb. The broadsheets are far too respectable to print the story, of course, but what they do is make a story out of the fact the the red tops are peddling dirt: 'Look at how low our press has sunk to offer this sort of smut to the reader', followed by all the details they deign to publish directly. Hypocrisy takes many forms.
pfgpowell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-05-2016, 09:15
pfgpowell
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,921

Given the recent guide published by Popbitch (which subsequently disappeared) to how the newspapers try to get around a superinjunction, such as the one recently about whether the married couple can be named, one of whom engaged in a bout of extra-marital shaggig, and how they can hint at those who have taken out the superinjunction this from the Daily Mail makes interesting reading. Not saying they are the couple behind that particular superinjunction, of course, as there must be several million married couples in Britain where one engages in a spot of extramural shagging.
pfgpowell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-05-2016, 09:19
pfgpowell
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,921
I hate The Daily Mail but their front page today is just LOL
Ever thought that folk like you 'hating the Daily Mail' but thinking their front page is LOL is one reason way it (and the Sun) are still the most successful nationals in Britain and although like the rest of them their circulations are falling, they are falling slower than the others (i.e. Telegraph around 1.5 million 15 years ago, now around 500,000, though given its 'pragmatic' approach to selectively printing the news so as not to harm advertising coupled with the fact it has rid itself of many of its staff (especially professional sub-editors) and particularly the high-paid ones, it is now making more money than it was. Well!
pfgpowell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-05-2016, 09:24
Phoenix Lazarus
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 13,888
She often gets legless.
Or half-way to being...?
Phoenix Lazarus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-05-2016, 09:29
Aurora13
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 10,592


All they've achieved with this is to paint massive targets on their backs for the press and pretty much everyone not living in a cave with no internet access knows anyway (probably including their children and/or their friends who they are supposedly so worried about embarrassing). Surely any celeb in future would see what a waste of money it is to do this.
All that the papers are doing is making the time of Leverson being implicated in full come closer. They were given one last chance by this Govt to self regulate. You've got to laugh really that their own obsession with stuff like this which is of no importance is going to lead to tighter laws/regulation. Labour / Lib Dems would have implemented the full recommendations of Leverson straight away.
Aurora13 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 20-05-2016, 09:35
Aurora13
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 10,592
Ever thought that folk like you 'hating the Daily Mail' but thinking their front page is LOL is one reason way it (and the Sun) are still the most successful nationals in Britain and although like the rest of them their circulations are falling, they are falling slower than the others (i.e. Telegraph around 1.5 million 15 years ago, now around 500,000, though given its 'pragmatic' approach to selectively printing the news so as not to harm advertising coupled with the fact it has rid itself of many of its staff (especially professional sub-editors) and particularly the high-paid ones, it is now making more money than it was. Well!
It's the done thing on here to hate DM and then read and post links to it.
Aurora13 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 20-05-2016, 09:35
grahamzxy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NW England
Posts: 9,647
A sworn affidavit was provided by the person wishing to tell their story, stating that this was the case. This is sworn under oath and you are at risk of perjury, i.e. prison, if found to be false.

Great front page on tomorrow's (Friday's) Daily Mail with a celeb singer and his husband gushing about their perfect marriage. The timing is great......
And yet DM readers are hardly going to be interested in an open (sexually) gay marriage...Sex scandals are so 1980s. Considering the couple recently got married after this episode....it is old news to be consigned to Internet history.

The DM just don't like to follow court rulings, maybe privacy laws like the French have are the future for UK publications....
grahamzxy is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 20:00.