You assumed when I said 'gay' I meant men, didn't you? Shockingly biased attitude...:wink: And it's paedo...
Putting aside whether all fudge packers are male and all kiddy fiddlers are gay, it is interesting how many TV presenters etc. are camp. I’m not saying they’re gay because I neither know nor care but a lot are very definitely camp. I suppose that some focus group must have decided the public like limp wristed fairies but I’d like to know who they are supposed to appeal to cos I can’t stand it, makes my skin crawl!
Check them out. There are sme pretty manly figures on tv and movies, but if you stick a camp-filter on, they are all camp in one way or another. Thats showbiz
Not all of them are gay,but an awful lot of them are,(or bisexual,which I think is worse for some reason)...thats almost certainly behind the phrase,"drama queen" I'm not that that way inclined myself,nor even curious,but that never stopped them asking the question If it's phrased in the right way way,no point in getting upset about it I used to tell my missus,it's nice to be fancied,even if you're not on their bus... Lots of gay fellers mean loads of lonely middle-aged female clipboard carriers in TV and showbiz: so it's a fertile hunting ground if that's what floats your boat :biggrin:
Quick, send me a job application form. After all "middle-aged female" = 'young totty' to an old git like me!:biggrin:
Sadly, it's not the press that's to blame. It's their punters and their incessant need for mindless gossip. Voyerism has never been so popular and it goes hand in hand with rise in the number of celebrities.
Hello Pete,its reported that several footballers and possibly others have served what has been described as a "super injunction" to keep pre trail press releases including personal details off the printing press.How does this legally speaking actually work? Stu.
I agree bradders but thats like saying that the more money you have,the more that you can withhold. Surely not..........
Good question. When somebody brings a legal action for the purpose of protecting their privacy, or preventing their personal information from being publicised, the courts face a difficult dilemma. The operation of the normal "open justice" rule would simply mean that the privacy would be breached and the personal information would be published, the exact opposite of what was being sought; it would make matters worse, and would mean the law would have no way at all of protecting privacy. And once the Furies are let out of Pandora's box there is no way of stuffing them back in - it is imperative to stop them getting out right at the beginning. So there has to be another way. Thus the courts can issue an injunction, forbidding the press (or anybody else) from publishing the information for the moment, until the courts have had an opportunity to consider the matter further and give a definitive judgment. But there is a further problem - if the media are allowed to publish the fact that there is an injunction in force about the private information of (say) Jeremy Clarkson, then the reptiles will descend like a plague of locusts* and the privacy will still be destroyed anyway. The only cure for that is a further injunction preventing any publication of the fact that there is an injunction relating to Mr Clarkson. That is what is meant by a "super-injunction". Actually they are very rarely imposed, and even when they are imposed temporarily it is much rarer still for them to be made permanent. Lots of perfectly ordinary injunctions have been wrongly referred to as "super-injunctions" in the media. Also they have tended to be ineffective in practice, and in the end have only served to draw more public attention to the matters they were intended to keep private. Speaking more generally of injunctions, such a court order generally forbids people from doing something which they ought not to be doing anyway, but makes breaches subject to punishment as contempt of court. * "... reptiles ... locusts ..." - which metaphor for journalists is more apt?
Arent these injuctions where the footballer is suing someone else, and if they are the accused gloves are off?
A bit tough, Pete. There are all sorts of good journalists writing about all sorts of interesting things. It's surely just a certain type of journalist to whom you object, no?
The context was about the types of journalists who dredge up prurient personal details about the (legal) private sex lives of individuals, such as adulterous affairs, homosexuality, masochistic practices, etc., and publish them in the gutter press. There seems to be a massive market for this sort of rubbish. I would be strongly opposed to any kind of general censorship, obviously. But it is a very sleazy, disreputable business and I am very glad I don't have to do it.
Nobody has to do it. Some people want to do it, some are quite prepared to do it for the money. There are other careers.
The problem, as I see it, with the mass media is that they do not understand the difference between what "is in the public interest" and what "the public find interesting", or if they do, they choose to ignore that difference...
They couldn't care less about the former. They are very interested in the latter. They are in a business - selling newspapers - and will put in them whatever they think will help them shift more of them to their target consumers.
