I agree, it shouldn't be allowed (especially for those in the public eye), but it is, so we can't have any names being mentioned.
We are on a privately owned forum remember, so naming names could result in us getting in trouble.
While I do believe that everyone has a right to privacy and to lead a normal family life, when you are put up as a role model and your reputation and behaviour are a big part of that image then it is only right that certain standards are to be expected. There are many celebrities both male and female who play the field and i have no issue with that as most of them are single and do not try and pretend to be something they are not. However those people who carefully cultivate the image of the happily married family man while trying to shag everything in a skirt and then use their wealth to try and conceal the truth are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites and deserve to outed for what they really are LIARS AND COWARDS.
Totally 100% agree. Don't know why the footballer is taking this action because it is widely known who it is, more importantly his wife knows (because he has had to admit to the affair)....and she has kicked him out. Why continue with this veil of secrecy?
Forgive my cynicism but I tend to think these rich people and celebrities are only taking these super injunctions to hide their own misdemeanours or instances of poor judgement. I cannot see how blocking public knowledge of these can ever be in the so called 'national interest'. Information being made top secret should only occur where there is a clear threat to national interest or public security. I cannot imagine that personal affairs of the types we have learnt about recently could possibly threaten the national interest. They merely affect the ego and public perception of the people concerned which is rather different.
At least we know it's true now what's been posted.
Why else would he be taking legal action against twitter..Talk about drawing attention to yourself.
The only test to be applied on whether something should be published or not should be whether it's true. It seems very odd to me that the media are restrained from reporting things when it's the truth.
(21-05-2011 23:24 )admiral decker Wrote: [ -> ]The only test to be applied on whether something should be published or not should be whether it's true. It seems very odd to me that the media are restrained from reporting things when it's the truth.
Reporter: "Do you beat your wife?"
Man in Public Life: "No, of course I don't beat my wife"
Newspaper Headline: "Man in Public Life denies beating his wife..."
That's the truth - but is it a fair report?
Never seen so many ridiculous over-simplifications and mock rage in one thread before.
(21-05-2011 23:24 )admiral decker Wrote: [ -> ]The only test to be applied on whether something should be published or not should be whether it's true. It seems very odd to me that the media are restrained from reporting things when it's the truth.
Not really sure if that should be the benchmark, if after X amount of years of wedded bliss you get divorced, should your ex be allowed to tell the world about your little quirks in the bedroom. This affects not only the rich but also us peasants.
