 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
The Sun newspaper has failed in it's bid to get the injunction lifted on reporting the Imogen Thomas affair.
I have to say that I agree totally with this decision. I remember clearly when Princess Diana was hounded to her death by paparazzi on a dark Parisian street that the clamour for a Privacy Law was deafening. Now the media want that same right to privacy denied to someone else regardless of what he is alleged to have done.
We can't have a selective privacy law, we either have a law that applies to everyone or we don't have a privacy law at all.
Whoever the footballer is, his affairs are between him and his wife and ultimately it is for them to work out - alone. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"It's all out in the open now...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13503847
"
Yes, I know, and shamefully so in my opinion. British Law is being laughed at around the world because of Giggs' idiotic attempt to gag twitter.
Never-the-less, it shows just what the media think of someone's right to privacy and you can bet your bottom dollar that anyone can be considered fair game after this shambolic affair.
It seems 'free speech' has won out over the right to a private life. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *-and-KCouple
over a year ago
Back of Beyond |
"
We can't have a selective privacy law."
This is where your argument falls down and is what is causing all the clamour in the media.
We do have a very selective privacy law- If you have the millions of pounds behind you then you can afford a super injunction. This is not something open to the ordinary guy in the street. Therefore we have a law for the rich and the rest of us can go to Hell.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
