|
||||||||
100% ALLEGED Showbiz, Blind Items and Gossip Thread (Part 5) |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#376 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Leicester!!!
Posts: 13,032
|
Quote:
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 ... It could be any one of three girls. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#377 |
|
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" ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#378 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Fandango Mansion
Posts: 3,218
|
Quote:
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 ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
#379 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: A Sound Expert
Posts: 13,881
|
Quote:
Could I have a clue to the wealthy ex, please?
![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#380 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 10,592
|
Quote:
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" ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#381 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Scotland .
Posts: 5,651
|
Quote:
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. 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 . |
|
|
|
|
|
#382 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Leicester!!!
Posts: 13,032
|
Quote:
Could I have a clue to the wealthy ex, please?
![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#383 |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
#384 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Council Estate
Posts: 35,535
|
Quote:
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 .
|
|
|
|
|
|
#385 |
|
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!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#386 |
|
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! |
|
|
|
|
|
#387 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 3,012
|
Quote:
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?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#388 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 264
|
Quote:
^
Not taking precautions? Do you have evidence or a link to back this up?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...... |
|
|
|
|
|
#389 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,228
|
Quote:
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...... It's genius, especially the last line...
|
|
|
|
|
|
#390 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,727
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#391 |
|
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!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#392 |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
#393 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: uk
Posts: 3,703
|
Quote:
This is the article.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...sed-David.html
It's genius, especially the last line... ![]() 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#394 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,921
|
Quote:
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" ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#395 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,921
|
How to get around a superinjunction
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#396 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,921
|
Quote:
I hate The Daily Mail but their front page today is just LOL
|
|
|
|
|
|
#397 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 13,888
|
Quote:
She often gets legless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#398 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 10,592
|
Quote:
![]() ![]() ![]() 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#399 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 10,592
|
Quote:
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!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#400 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NW England
Posts: 9,647
|
Quote:
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...... The DM just don't like to follow court rulings, maybe privacy laws like the French have are the future for UK publications.... |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 18:56.



