Skip to main content

Crime is the main reason I'm so interested in this subject. I remember a few years ago a particular scratter tabloid telling us to buy next weeks copy. They were going to give us the low down on a particular alleged criminal. Next week? Nothing! Maybe the journalist ended up in some concrete constuction. I want investigative journalism. I want to know who is responsible for financialcrime, trafficking drugs, prostitutes, children, or whatever they do nowadays. I don't care about footballers and escort girls, or the faux freedom of information argument. it is shitty, lazy, safe, journalism designed to titillate the brain dead.
Garage Joe
Originally Posted by Kaytee:

Giggs and Imogen have become a bit of a sideshow now. The main debate centres on the freedom of the press and free speech and who exactly is making the laws in this country now.

The judges and lawyers seem to be manipylating the 'uman rights act to allow various very wealthy people to protect their own interests. Kerching for the lawyers...they are the true winners, everyone else loses out

I know I'm in the minority here, but I'd be more than happy for the gutter press and the 'kiss and tellers'  to lose out and for us got back to some sense of privacy and trust, for all concerned in these situations 

FM
Originally Posted by Supercalifragilistic:
Originally Posted by Kaytee:

Giggs and Imogen have become a bit of a sideshow now. The main debate centres on the freedom of the press and free speech and who exactly is making the laws in this country now.

The judges and lawyers seem to be manipylating the 'uman rights act to allow various very wealthy people to protect their own interests. Kerching for the lawyers...they are the true winners, everyone else loses out

I know I'm in the minority here, but I'd be more than happy for the gutter press and the 'kiss and tellers'  to lose out and for us got back to some sense of privacy and trust, for all concerned in these situations 

I don't want to know about these people's private lives, but I do worry that the freedom of expression will be affected if we let the courts rule. It needs some sort of middle ground which is acceptible to both sides. Btw., I don't think the footballer really deserves his privacy. He is supposed to be a role model, well known for being a good family man. He's none of that and IMO has therefore forfeited his rights.

cologne 1
Originally Posted by Supercalifragilistic:
Originally Posted by jacksonb:

If an average person did the same dirty deed and got caught out they wouldn’t be able to afford protection. The ability to use money to suppress the truth creates a level of unfairness between social classes.

Super-injunctions favour the rich and famous and leave the poor to fight the consequences alone. In a supposedly democratic society, how is this fair?

 

And they may be able  to trace a mobile tweeter and  his isp, but only if he resides here.

 

Hiya JB, I asked this somewhere else 'cos I really don't get it: Why would an 'average person' need to 'afford protection'..surely the press/twitterers etc. would have no interest?

the average person may not be concerned with twitter knowing what mucky doings  he's been up to, but most average people   would have the same desire to protect themselves and  those close to to them

 

So if you've shagged your best friends mum and 'er next door saw you and is  bound to blab,  it'd  be nice to geta super injunction to ensure she kept her trap shut, eh?

So you check your back pocket and come up  with a  scrumpled fiver and  a furry bit of chewing gum, its just not gonna cut it , is it?

jacksonb
Originally Posted by Garage Joe:
I disagree! If anything Giggs, and Scholes for that matter, are known for rarely being in the news except for football reasons.

That's really what I mean GJ. My jaw dropped when I heard who it was and I would feel the same if I heard this about Scholes. If I was a youngster and a fan, I'd feel a bit let down.

cologne 1
Originally Posted by cologne 1:
Originally Posted by Garage Joe:
I disagree! If anything Giggs, and Scholes for that matter, are known for rarely being in the news except for football reasons.

That's really what I mean GJ. My jaw dropped when I heard who it was and I would feel the same if I heard this about Scholes. If I was a youngster and a fan, I'd feel a bit let down.

Mine didn't...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Next up will be a revelation of Sh*tarito having a lesbian affair with Lindsay Lohan

MrMincePie
Originally Posted by jacksonb:

the average person may not be concerned with twitter knowing what mucky doings  he's been up to, but most average people   would have the same desire to protect themselves and  those close to to them

 

So if you've shagged your best friends mum and 'er next door saw you and is  bound to blab,  it'd  be nice to geta super injunction to ensure she kept her trap shut, eh?

So you check your back pocket and come up  with a  scrumpled fiver and  a furry bit of chewing gum, its just not gonna cut it , is it?

Ah, I see that's kinda my point....you'll never stop gossip and tittle tattle, that's one thing, having it all over the press and going 'world-wide' is another, (isn't it assumed that it was a journalist who put it on twitter?) Oh and if yer best friend's mum fancied a few thousand quid from the press and a spot on This Morning I'm guessing they wouldn't be much interested?

FM
Originally Posted by cologne 1:
Originally Posted by Supercalifragilistic:
Originally Posted by Kaytee:

Giggs and Imogen have become a bit of a sideshow now. The main debate centres on the freedom of the press and free speech and who exactly is making the laws in this country now.

The judges and lawyers seem to be manipylating the 'uman rights act to allow various very wealthy people to protect their own interests. Kerching for the lawyers...they are the true winners, everyone else loses out

I know I'm in the minority here, but I'd be more than happy for the gutter press and the 'kiss and tellers'  to lose out and for us got back to some sense of privacy and trust, for all concerned in these situations 

I don't want to know about these people's private lives, but I do worry that the freedom of expression will be affected if we let the courts rule. It needs some sort of middle ground which is acceptible to both sides. Btw., I don't think the footballer really deserves his privacy. He is supposed to be a role model, well known for being a good family man. He's none of that and IMO has therefore forfeited his rights.

It should be left to the House of Commons to decide on these "Injunctions" Only if they pose a threat to national security should they be allowed, not to the dick happy megabucks tossers who seem to think they are above everyone else.

FM
Originally Posted by Supercalifragilistic:
Originally Posted by jacksonb:

the average person may not be concerned with twitter knowing what mucky doings  he's been up to, but most average people   would have the same desire to protect themselves and  those close to to them

 

So if you've shagged your best friends mum and 'er next door saw you and is  bound to blab,  it'd  be nice to geta super injunction to ensure she kept her trap shut, eh?

So you check your back pocket and come up  with a  scrumpled fiver and  a furry bit of chewing gum, its just not gonna cut it , is it?

Ah, I see that's kinda my point....you'll never stop gossip and tittle tattle, that's one thing, having it all over the press and going 'world-wide' is another, (isn't it assumed that it was a journalist who put it on twitter?) Oh and if yer best friend's mum fancied a few thousand quid from the press and a spot on This Morning I'm guessing they wouldn't be much interested?

What makes me mad is that this story has taken over from the other main stuff still on-going today, ie- Japan and Libya. Mountains out of molehills IMO .

FM
Originally Posted by Syd:
Originally Posted by Jonesy:

What makes me mad is that this story has taken over from the other main stuff still on-going today, ie- Japan and Libya. Mountains out of molehills IMO .

Exactly......Don't know about Japan and Lybya, but the Potholes in this Country need looking into,....... Diversion tictacs methinks.

Potholes yes- Maybe the Govt will have some spare money now the troops have pulled out of Iraq.

FM
Originally Posted by Supercalifragilistic:
Originally Posted by jacksonb:

the average person may not be concerned with twitter knowing what mucky doings  he's been up to, but most average people   would have the same desire to protect themselves and  those close to to them

 

So if you've shagged your best friends mum and 'er next door saw you and is  bound to blab,  it'd  be nice to geta super injunction to ensure she kept her trap shut, eh?

So you check your back pocket and come up  with a  scrumpled fiver and  a furry bit of chewing gum, its just not gonna cut it , is it?

Ah, I see that's kinda my point....you'll never stop gossip and tittle tattle, that's one thing, having it all over the press and going 'world-wide' is another, (isn't it assumed that it was a journalist who put it on twitter?) Oh and if yer best friend's mum fancied a few thousand quid from the press and a spot on This Morning I'm guessing they wouldn't be much interested?

No they wouldn't, lol.

 

My point was that in a democratic society some are able to pay to be protected by the law,if they have deep enough pockets.

 

It's wrong.

jacksonb
Democratic society? Pah! Shirley you mean Market economy! It's all geared towards academic success or skills which are sold in the Market. Thus certain people are able to purchase bigger cars, houses, and tasteless and vulgar shieght in general. The same applies to the law. Individuals can buy law. Added to this I understand the Tories were going to start messing with legal aid, if they haven't done so yet. We have a family saying where we point at an imaginary chart saying. "you are here! But it's mainly visual and doesn't work on a thread like this!
Garage Joe
Originally Posted by cologne 1:
Originally Posted by velvet donkey:

Still hope Giles Coren gets jail.

 

Just because.

Whose Giles Coren?

Super Injunctions and Contempt of Court

On 13 May 2011 Coren attracted more controversy joking about a Super Injunction by posting on his Twitter feed: "god, ANOTHER injunction tonight. another footballer. and SUCH a boring one. F***ing shit midfielder... he's yet another very ugly married man who's been carrying on with a gold-digging flopsie he should have seen coming a MILE away...". Then on 14 May he tweeted "Gareth Barry looks remarkably relaxed when you consider that... first touch for gareth barry... not according to what i've heard... time for a bet. what chance Barry to score? tiny fiver on barry to score at 22-1. wdv been nice to get a double with giggs in the match before.. Barry's been pulled off...". This was later deleted but was archived.[30]

Various UK papers reported on 22 May 2011 that a journalist could be jailed over Twitter comments about injunctions and its referral to the Attorney General Dominic Grieve.[31][32] Later on Twitter Coren acknowledged he could face jail.[33] Coren was named as the journalist facing prosecution in the House of Commons by John Hemming on 23 May 2011

FM
Originally Posted by erinp:
Originally Posted by cologne 1:
Originally Posted by velvet donkey:

Still hope Giles Coren gets jail.

 

Just because.

Whose Giles Coren?

Super Injunctions and Contempt of Court

On 13 May 2011 Coren attracted more controversy joking about a Super Injunction by posting on his Twitter feed: "god, ANOTHER injunction tonight. another footballer. and SUCH a boring one. F***ing shit midfielder... he's yet another very ugly married man who's been carrying on with a gold-digging flopsie he should have seen coming a MILE away...". Then on 14 May he tweeted "Gareth Barry looks remarkably relaxed when you consider that... first touch for gareth barry... not according to what i've heard... time for a bet. what chance Barry to score? tiny fiver on barry to score at 22-1. wdv been nice to get a double with giggs in the match before.. Barry's been pulled off...". This was later deleted but was archived.[30]

Various UK papers reported on 22 May 2011 that a journalist could be jailed over Twitter comments about injunctions and its referral to the Attorney General Dominic Grieve.[31][32] Later on Twitter Coren acknowledged he could face jail.[33] Coren was named as the journalist facing prosecution in the House of Commons by John Hemming on 23 May 2011

I wish somebody would give all of them a smack and remind them what they are supposed to be doing. Jeewizz. I'm sick of those self important people. I know some people in this country perpetuate this carp by buying the magazines and papers, but please, enought already.

cologne 1

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×