I doubt it. Hardly any gay kiss and tells appear in the press, despite many gay men having fairly active, non monogamous sex lives (I say that as a gay man!). There are loads of gay MPs in Parliament, some with quite colourful sex lives, but we never read about them in the press.

I think the ludicrous thing about this ruling yesterday is that we all know who was involved, yet we can't mention it on here because we would be in breach of the law! Its an Orwellian situation.

True, The Sun made a pledge a few years back never to do another gay expose' again. If anything, a few high profile gay celebs have used them to publicly come out

From CDAN:

What A+ list royal apparently has a weekly group session dealing with her eating disorder.

We do not want a censored press but maybe one that does what it is meant to , report the news and not just search for gossip and when they cannot find it print anyway with unnamed sources. And a press that is accountable , sorry but how can they claim Whittingdale was entitled to a private life given what he did and his position and his position with the press and then claim this story must be heard ? A free press , yes of course, but one that seems to pick and choose who it humiliates based on what they can do for them, no.

Are you deliberately trolling by playing dumb?

Wonder if this might possibly be at the Will of her other half...he's seen it all before as a kid.

so you don't support article 8 of the ECHR: the right to a private and family life.
are their any other human rights you thing we should abandon.

Absolutely.


I really don't understand this argument in this instance though. Regardless of whether they've let the 'Hello' press into their lives, what they do, as consenting adults, in their private life is no one's business other than theirs and has no impact upon their parenting of their children or how they should be viewed. Whether you realise it or not, you're judging them and the only conclusion I can come to regarding that judgement is either you really don't like them and want to see them publicly shamed, or you have a prurient interest in their sex life and want the details?

Is saying what someone does in their private life as long as it is legal is not the business of the gutter press classed as censorship ? I would say the government minister and what he was up to was more akin to censorship (considering his power over the future of the press) even though it was done voluntarily by the media. In this case the people concerned happen to have enough money to fight the press.

So you think his behaviour was shameful? I never mentioned shame but you obviously feel that way. I've repeatedly said I don't care if they have an open marriage, why would I want the details of their sex life? Is that the only reason somebody would have a problem with rich people buying censorship? Your homophobic assumptions about gay sex are leaking out all over the place in your post.

Let me repeat I'm not judging them for their sexuality. Your primitive assumption that anyone who disapproves of any action of a gay man is homophobic in itself, not to mention incredibly parochial.and has been alluded to more than once on this thread.

All you virtue signallers that desperately want the world to know you totally get gay parents having threesomes are actually perpetuating a homophobic stereotype that constructs gay marital relationships as non-monogamous. That is not the case, gay marriages, like straight ones come in all shapes and sizes. I've repeatedly stated my arguments as to why I find them hypocritical and why its distasteful that only the wealthy can use the courts to censor the press.

I've really no idea what evidence you have for any of the accusations you have flung at me in your post but just like the tabloids, maybe you're hoping mud will stick.

I agree that the absence of any story about Whittingdale was a scandal and indicative of an unhealthy relationship between politicians and press. No question.

There does seem to a snobbish attitude to the tabloid press here and a holier than thou attitude by some of the posters.

The strange thing is that they have this attitude but comment on the threads here, which the majority originate from tabloid sources. There is some hypocrisy on here, with the hatred directed at the right leaning media, ie, The Sun and Daily Mail.

I wonder if the story was in the left wing press and the person involved was a Tory would they still be supporting privacy and the poor poor children?

If we include children before we print a story, we would not get to hear about Vernon Kay, Ryan Giggs, John Terry, Mark Owen, Beckham / Loos, Danzuck, Cecil Parkinson, Jeffrey Archer.

Even ignoring the children, all other stories, Cheryl and Astley Cole, Les Dennis / Amanda Holden, Charlie Sheen, Mitchell / Plebgate, Gazza, Jason Manford / webcam, etc.

You could argue, bar the politician's, are they public interest stories....but it would be a boring World if we could not have a read of such stories and the papers were full of politics / world events. Remember, there are plenty of such stories about ordinary members of the public and their indiscretions, why should celebs should be different?

There are papers like that of course which deal with sleaze and the best thing is we have the choice on what to read. Looking at the popularity of the showbiz gossip thread on here, it does appear a lot of people like these stories.

Personally I feel we should have a proper free press, not where we think there is one. People decide if they want to buy a publication or read their website at the end of the day. If the Internet was being neutered by the politician's I am sure the outrage would be blowing up on here, but some are happy for the British press to have these restrictions.

I will always say that the the threat of being exposed in the UK press does keep a lot of powerful people on the strand narrow. Would we want to remove that? Celebs today buying privacy, politicians tomorrow.

Be careful what you wish for

Well that was a very OTT response to what I thought was a reasonably benign argument. I still don't see why this particular injuction bothers you so much.

Well I do not think this story is in the public interest it is just tabloid scandal and that is all, and I voted Tory so that doesn't sit with your left theory. Can our press not concentrate on actual news and investigating stories that are actually worthy of printing (and as we have seen they choose to sit on some) rather than go to print with who is or isn't shagging who as though it is some kind of major story that affects us all.

it isn't snobbery about the tabloid press it is that the tabloid press are forgetting they are supposed to be newspapers and not scandal mags

Yet the person involved is hiding behind his children because he does not want them to find out about his behaviour which would undoubtedly upset them.He may not have a responsibility to the public but he has to his children. I would dispute he is actually internationally known in any case although his spouse might be.

My opinion alone, but I do feel there is an anti right wing press view on here from a lot (not all) posters.

It is ridiculous that the story can be told pretty much everywhere, bar here. The Sun was going to report the other parties side of the story, he should have the right to tell it in my opinion without the draconian threat of jail. Crazy.

The free speech campaigner John Hemming summed it up best by saying 'the disproportionate use of injunctions and secrecy means people don't have to worry about how they behave, they only have to worry about how much money they have'

At the end of the day, we all love a good scandal, that is why we are on this thread!

So you don't think the accusations you made (I have a prurient interest in people's sex lives and want to know the details, I want to see them shamed publically) are worthy of a robust defence? Interesting.

Only if they're doing something illegal and/or in direct contradiction of the public image they present and earn income/acclaim from.

Outside of that, and as long as it's legal/between consenting adults etc, they have every right to protect their privacy.

What a childish post. The celeb in question doesn't wish to have a private family life as he has been paid lots of money for several glossy magazine articles and photoshoots about his family!

Exactly, there are plenty of private celebs. Not ones who do magazine spreads and even have had a documentary crew following them.

That article in the Human Rights Act is a joke and has been abused plenty of times, criminals who avoid being deported for one.

What a low blind! Isn't it a good thing the person is seeking help, in a group session? Why does anyone feel they have any right to leak this blind?

my post was in relation to your comment
Should be able to print what you want and damn the consequences. Too many people who take offence over little things, look away, switch off. Some people on here are similar to the Twitter mob and so quick to take offence.

taking that to its logical conclusion means that no-one would have a right to a private life.
The principle at stake is more important than just this couple and this story.

I put a question mark after my conclusions. If they don't apply in your case, you could have just said no, that's not where you're coming from.

Interestingly, your response to me, looking at it again, is actually far more offensive and personal than mine was to you.

But whatever, we're plainly not going to agree on this so... moving on.

I just wonder how some of you would feel if details of your sex life were all over the papers? I bet some of you like bum fun and slippery threesomes and I bet some of you masturbate in front of University Challenge.
Would you think it ok if that was printed for all you family and colleagues to read?

I must be old and past it as I have no idea what a 'slippery threesome' is!