|
||||||||
100% ALLEGED Showbiz, Blind Items and Gossip Thread (Part 5) |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#526 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Central London
Posts: 43,686
|
Quote:
The injunction is there, not because of the nature of an open marriage, but because of the hypocricy. They practice one thing but preach another.
This is WHY it is in the public interest, and why they have an injunction. If i had a foundation or charity, and my lifestyle went against the core beliefs that i preached to others, it would reflect poorly. Also I don't see him preaching anything if you look at the site concerned with a charity and this story is not in the public interest it is in the tabloids interest to sell copies. |
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#527 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: County Durham
Posts: 78,615
|
Quote:
Actually Kelvin's column was not about Rocketman, but rather parents of a missing child.
I read the interview with Rocketman, he was singing the praises of the press in the UK, saying he would rather be here than in the USA |
|
|
|
|
|
#528 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Offenburg, Germany
Posts: 1,352
|
Quote:
I took that blind to mean a male rapper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#529 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,921
|
Quote:
Completely. I am very nervous that unelected judges are in effect becoming censors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#530 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,921
|
Quote:
The Sun gets my vote everytime.
Judges should not decide what is in the public's interest to read and not read. It is state censorship. Would you have the same opinion if they were to gag forums such as this? Or is it simply anti Murdoch sentiment that you base your opinions on? |
|
|
|
|
|
#531 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 264
|
Remember there is actually no privacy law that has been passed by parliament in the UK. There is of course the ECHR and right to a family life, but the ECHR also has freedom of expression.
I believe freedom of speech is more important than a celebs right to hide a threesome. The children excuse is just that, an excuse. They are far to young to see a tabloid headline and it provides a variety of other rich people to use that excuse to hide any other unsavoury stories about themselves. Who would want to live in a World where judges choose what the public can and cannot read? State sponsored censorship in all but name. As outlined earlier, look at France where President Mitterand was able to hide a love child and affairs using their privacy laws. Sp o we cannot assume a public interest story would make it out. The public should be able to decide what is in their interests to read or not read Also,remember the celebs in question have done spreads about their perfect family life and used their children in these shoots and stories. To then use them to hide behind privacy laws is hypocrisy when then have been used publicly |
|
|
|
|
|
#532 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Central London
Posts: 43,686
|
Quote:
Remember there is actually no privacy law that has been passed by parliament in the UK. There is of course the ECHR and right to a family life, but the ECHR also has freedom of expression.
I believe freedom of speech is more important than a celebs right to hide a threesome. The children excuse is just that, an excuse. They are far to young to see a tabloid headline and it provides a variety of other rich people to use that excuse to hide any other unsavoury stories about themselves. Who would want to live in a World where judges choose what the public can and cannot read? State sponsored censorship in all but name. As outlined earlier, look at France where President Mitterand was able to hide a love child and affairs using their privacy laws. So we cannot assume a public interest story would make it out. The public should be able to decide what is in their interests to read or not read And maybe their family life is perfect for them there is no one rule fits all. |
|
|
|
|
#533 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 264
|
There are a lot of publications to read.....if one wanted to print the Whittingdale story, they should have.. If someone didn't want to, fair enough.
Press laws today...Internet tomorrow? They are using victorian laws in a modern world. Crazy in the 21st century where you can read some details of the story, you can't in the UK....but can even in that democracy called China! I would rather have a free noisy press upsetting people, for all their faults, than one controlled by the Government / judges |
|
|
|
|
|
#534 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Central London
Posts: 43,686
|
Quote:
There are a lot of publications to read.....if one wanted to print the Whittingdale story, they should have.. If someone didn't want to, fair enough.
Press laws today...Internet tomorrow? They are using victorian laws in a modern world. Crazy in the 21st century where you can read some details of the story, you can't in the UK....but can even in that democracy called China! I would rather have a free noisy press upsetting people, for all their faults, than one controlled by the Government / judges |
|
|
|
|
#535 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 3,012
|
Quote:
The public should be able to decide what is in their interests to read or not read.
Yeah.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#536 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 6,486
|
How lucky for the Chinese people that they can read in newspapers all the details about this threesome.
And the poor citizens of UK are deprived of this right! The horror! |
|
|
|
|
|
#537 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: A Sound Expert
Posts: 13,881
|
Quote:
How lucky for the Chinese people that they can read in newspapers all the details about this threesome.
And the poor citizens of UK are deprived of this right! The horror! |
|
|
|
|
|
#538 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 264
|
Agreed, some people cannot see the irony. Tge UK government complains about state interference in places like China, but their media has printed the story.
Obviously some of this irony is lost on posters here. However they would be the first complaining if the Internet was policed and they couldn't post their 1000 messages a year somewhere. They nay even have to go and find a life....the horror! |
|
|
|
|
|
#539 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,714
|
Quote:
Do you not find it ironic that we have state sponsored censorship in the UK, protecting their delicate citizens from knowing the truth, and China is free to publish as they wish?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#540 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,850
|
Quote:
Remember there is actually no privacy law that has been passed by parliament in the UK. There is of course the ECHR and right to a family life, but the ECHR also has freedom of expression.
I believe freedom of speech is more important than a celebs right to hide a threesome. The children excuse is just that, an excuse. They are far to young to see a tabloid headline and it provides a variety of other rich people to use that excuse to hide any other unsavoury stories about themselves. Who would want to live in a World where judges choose what the public can and cannot read? State sponsored censorship in all but name. As outlined earlier, look at France where President Mitterand was able to hide a love child and affairs using their privacy laws. Sp o we cannot assume a public interest story would make it out. The public should be able to decide what is in their interests to read or not read Also,remember the celebs in question have done spreads about their perfect family life and used their children in these shoots and stories. To then use them to hide behind privacy laws is hypocrisy when then have been used publicly What if there is a celeb who was sexually abused by their dead grand parents but they don't tell the police so they are not entitled to the legal anonymity that crime victims get. The celebrity in question does lots of magazine interviews saying how great their childhood was and how much they love their grandparents and how mentally healthy they are. A close friend sells the real story. As the grand parents are dead there is no danger of libel. The press want to print it but the celeb gets an injunction in the uk so they cannot but other countries can. Would you still think it is okay for the press to fight the injunction? For them To want to print a story saying the celeb is a hypocrite because they have sold their private life to the press and it doesn't match the story? Would it be justified for the press to justify printing it as members of the public may be interested in reading it? That with the internet t is bound to come out anyway? If the press win the PJS case, the judgment may become part of case law so other cases like the type I have outlined could end up losing the right to privacy and it could open the flood gates. I agree it is important that the press are not controlled too harshly as they need to help keep important people in line with the threat of exposure stopping them misbehaving. However a press with no limits is just as dangerous as a controlled press. They could print stories that could be distressing to public figures mental health for no reason other than to make money. We have seen from the hacking scandal how far the press will go when they have rules to adhere to so can you imagine what they would do if they had no rules? |
|
|
|
|
|
#541 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Central London
Posts: 43,686
|
Quote:
Agreed, some people cannot see the irony. Tge UK government complains about state interference in places like China, but their media has printed the story.
Obviously some of this irony is lost on posters here. However they would be the first complaining if the Internet was policed and they couldn't post their 1000 messages a year somewhere. They nay even have to go and find a life....the horror! So China allows a story about a celeb, just a shame they prevent their citizens doing so many other ordinary things we do every day isn't it or as you consider The Sun to be preferable to the Judiciary would you also like to live in China ? |
|
|
|
|
#542 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,153
|
Quote:
Do you not find it ironic that we have state sponsored censorship in the UK, protecting their delicate citizens from knowing the truth, and China is free to publish as they wish?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#543 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,559
|
I wonder who the haitdresser groper is?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#544 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 264
|
Seeing as North Korea, another shining light of democracy have named them now, it does make this ruling even more ridiculous.
Can argue all you want about the rights and wrongs, if it is in the public interest or not. Given the partners AIDS'S charity work and a sworn affidavit from the other party that no condom use was requested....it is worth raising. Never mind their use of children in photoshoots when they wish to use them, but then use them as human shields to protect against adverse publicity, again, hypocrisy. Some people are blind to this, probably the glare of their monitors as they post their thousands of posts on this (and most probably others) sites. I said it before and I will say it again, a lot of the hatred is towards the right wing press here, The Sun and Mail. If the story was about some Tory politician or donor and The Guardian wished to run it, I wonder if these posters would have the same opinion? Hmmmm Backdoor privacy is dangerous, surley we should want a free press, enshrined in Law, as in the USA? Freedom of speech is so important, given we lambast other countries who apparently do not have it. Would these posters be supporting the policing of the Internet for instance....or is it just their tabloid hatred that clouds their judgement? Unelected judges should not decide what the public want to read or not. They no doubt look down their noses at kiss and tells, etc, but the public should decide if they wish to read such stories by buying the publication or not. Nobody buys it, reads it or comments upon it, obviously not much interest there. However given the amount of threads and Internet chatter aboutthis story, you could argue there is. The Mail published it in Scotland as they believed there is a wider interest of privacy concerns, they were not really interested in the story as much. Should the other party in question have the right to tell his side of the story or not, without the treat of jail? I unquestionably believe that yes he does. Right to expression / freedom of speech should trump somebody's privacy concerns. If the actions are so embarrassing and could harm their children, maybe they should not have participated in the first place? If they were aware that could be printed, maybe, just maybe it would not have happened. The treat of being exposed, for whatever misdemeanor, in the press is a good thing. Without that threat of exposure cover-up's happen and the truth is hidden, see president Mitterand in France for example |
|
|
|
|
|
#545 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 22,432
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#546 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 784
|
Quote:
I wonder who the haitdresser groper is?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#547 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 13,996
|
Quote:
Agreed, some people cannot see the irony. Tge UK government complains about state interference in places like China, but their media has printed the story.
Obviously some of this irony is lost on posters here. However they would be the first complaining if the Internet was policed and they couldn't post their 1000 messages a year somewhere. They nay even have to go and find a life....the horror!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#548 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: West London
Posts: 2,038
|
Quote:
Stop being so bloomin' rude and personal.
![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#549 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Location: North London
Posts: 420
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#550 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 6,486
|
Quote:
Do you not find it ironic that we have state sponsored censorship in the UK, protecting their delicate citizens from knowing the truth, and China is free to publish as they wish?
I'm fully aware that there will always be some censorship, in some form, and 'freedom of speech' will never be complete. Being able to read about a consented celebrity threesome in the uk newspapers is not the first thing on my list to fight for tbh. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 19:58.





