How woud you feel if every detail of your personal life was publicised?

[funnyspelling]

I'm not defending ANYONE, far from it, however, how does "being in the
public eye" make a difference?

If everything you said or did was splashed all over mn for example, how would you feel?

I think there is a vast difference between what is in the public interest and what interests the public.

While people seem to have certain expectations of those who are celebrities, being famous does not mean you have to sign up to a moral code of conduct or that you should be answerable to anyone other than those who are impacted by your actions. And while having an affair is certainly immoral, it is not illegal.

If a footballer has an affair the media take great delight in releasing the details not because his conduct has affected his job, or anyone else around him other than his wife and children and family of the other woman, but because news that x footballer has been sleeping with y z-list airhead who happened to become famous for going on reality tv sells papers. Because some people will actually pay good money to read all the solatious details in their full glory.

Let's not kid ourselves that the public needs to know - we really don't. But for some unknown reason the public want to know, and so the media are more than happy to provide the details in the name of "public interest" public nosyness more like.

I was in twitter and I saw a really good quote - apologies to the originator and it went something like this;-
Being famous is like being given a pie, the thing is you HAVE to eat it all and not just the bits you like. If you are in a position of public responsibility, deliberately court publicity, use people like Max Clifford or use your position or celebrity to influence people, then you have a much bigger pie to eat.
I also feel that as a society human beings are not always moral beings and many of our society's rules of acceptable behaviour support family values and honest behaviour. There are some people who are not always honest or moral but the risk of public humiliation / loss of face etc keeps their behaviour in check. The use of these injunctions really threatens these unwritten rules of society and means that the rich and powerful can be as hypocritical as they like with no sanction at all.
I think that these can be easily abused to prevent natural justice.
Fd gin was looking after people's money was paid a huge amount to do this and should not have been having an affair in works time. R*n g**s is paid from the money of fans who follow his team all over the world he also makes money from his personal image.

yes tsc I agree with you. He is not paid out of the public purse. besides where do you draw the line on that? should every civil servant, everyone who works in public office be answerable to the public for what happens in their private lives regardless of how much they are being paid? after all a civil servant having an affair is still being paid out of the public purse even if they're not famous, so why should the details of said affair not be up for public scrutiny? oh perhaps it's because the public wouldn't actually care if jo Bloggs had an affair...

as I said, public interest vs interests the public.

"I can't abide the fact that someone by dint of their purse has been able to decide they can silence people."

The problem being, however, that if an ordinary man has an affair, it's not going to make the papers and he doesn't need to spend money on an injunction. It's only when someone rich/famous has an affair that it's a juicy story. It's only 'by dint of their purse' that they are worth reporting in the first place.....

No wannaBe - Andrew Marr admitted he'd taken out an injunction regarding an extra marital affair - this is someone who routinely asks politicians difficult questions about judgement etc ( sometimes questions about their own not so squeaky clean private life) super injunctions create total hypocrisy - in a nutshell

I'm not sure if that's the case Cogito. Yesterday's main story in the Mail Online was about a group of teachers at a hen party. Teachers don't have much of a purse but it was apparently worth reporting.

If you are famous and in the public eye then you have to take it all-not just the part that appeals to you. I would hate to have to worry about my every move being made public so I wouldn't get in the public eye.

Presumably the teachers didn't know they were about to be front-page news so injunctions wouldn't be any use. Teachers are meant to be above reproach so, when they and people like them misbehave, it's fodder for the Sundays. The 'naughty vicar' story is a hardy perennial

but we're not talking about Andrew Marr, are we?

It's an entirely reasonable response to think that someone who publically questions people on their private lives is a hipocrit for taking out an injunction for having the same done to him.

But there is a vast difference between him and a footballer who is paid, by his, privately owned club, to play football, and sometimes by sponsors to wear their kit.

Now if he was being sponsored by relate I could kind of see the point. But he isn't.

@exoticfruits. Footballers are just doing a job. Their job happens to be played out in front of millions and earns them big bucks but it's still a job. Does a footballer take up the chance to play for a big club purely to get famous - or because they're talented and/or love the game? A Big Brother contestant or a Jordan type is different. They are famous for nothing else other than being famous so they have to take the ups with the downs.

So are you saying only footballers are entitled to privacy?
Only rich sportsman who use women like toys can buy off embarrassment ?

Put that one to the feminists

The argument was that if you're in the public eye you have to expect to have your private life splattered all over the press and just put up with it. I disagree but the point is not a sexist one. Being good at sport happens to put people (of either gender) into the public gaze and can attract big money. But the same applies to other non-gender-specific roles such as acting, writing books, being a top chef. And I think there is something unfair about saying that just because a person is known to the public, then they should have no privacy and no protection from people who would like to ruin their reputation.

I bet the footballer likes being recognised and would hate people not to have a clue who he is-therefore he takes the rough with the smooth IMO -you can't have fans on 'your terms' -you have fans on 'the fan's terms' . Whether it is right or wrong is neither here nor there-if you are in the public eye you are there all the time and not just when it suits you.

That's the thing though, about losing your right to privacy, shag a student or a choirboy - fairly sure you're in for some reproach, put your leg over a bannister while fully clothed and you're on the front page of the Mail. Can't possibly be in anyone's interests, let alone the public.

Also I'm fed up of seeing people who are just doing their job but because there is something about them that the tabloids deem newsworthy they get attention they don't court, like Steven Davies the cricketer in the news for being gay. Why does he have to accept that is part of sporting success?

Idon't - you can name Fred Goodwin now, the injunction has been lifted.

I can't see how Imogen's "affaires" are in the public interest, would she really want to publicise seeing a married man? If she "hadn't known" and "been upset to discover" he was married, I could sympathise, but to court publicity for that reason would be self defeating to say the least....

I don't find footballer shags whoever stories that interesting myself, and as others have mentioned it's the innocent bystanders, such as family that get the fall out from cases like this.

These injunctions are a farce anyway - the world has moved on in the last 10 years - with twitter, Facebook, and other social networking sites - news/rumours are spread all across the world within minutes - it's almost impossible to stop.

I agree Primalscream-they have to be a step ahead-not a step behind.

I have mentioned footballers because these injunctions predominantly involve footballers. But I think the same applies to anyone doing a job, tennis players, cricketers, television personalities (and being a newsreader might also make you a "celeb" for instance).

Most of these people are doing a job, sometimes it happens that they are good at that job and become famous as a result.

Aquiring fame through your job is vastly different than seeking that publicity such as the katie prices/kerry katona's of this world whose "job" is to be public property and making money from exploiting their children.

But all this "paid from the public purse" talk is just bollocks really. Everyone is ultimately paid by the public. If the checkout girl at m&s is having an affair should I as a paying customer have a right to know about it? similarly if any one of us who claims child benefit or any other kind of benefit that is funded by the taxpayer has an affair should anyone else have the right to know about it?

It's easy to sit in judgement of those who are seen to be in the public eye because we're not them. But start to define this idea of being "paid from the public purse" and be defined as part of that then it becomes a different matter entirely.

The press think they know what sells papers. They operate a fame culture. And it is said to sellpapers when a rich person shags around whenarried or partnered ut a lot of other things sell papers and papers sales are said to be under threat..so it will stay a lively business. Myself and lily Allen are still not an ITEM I just like a girl with attitude.

Wannabe I think you have just summed up exactly the point I was getting at.

You dance with the devil you're gonna get pricked by his horns. Plenty of celebs manage to keep out of the papers - James McAvoy Thom Yorke for example.
Others trade on it, made money out of it. We know who they are.

Others get caught and the fact they like having things shoved up their bottoms is their business - but if they seek fame, having a prostitute habit is a high wire act. We are all grown ups.

I don't have a right to know about the Welsh Wizard's affair (or the M&Scheckout girl's affair) but I or anyone else shouldn't be prevented from openly discussing it if we so wish.

Also in most jobs there are penalties- if you are a doctor and you mess up you will appear before the GMC and these hearings are public. Most people in professionals do not get a free lifestyle pass. Look at the way smoking teachers are regarded on here. Why should it be different for celebs who trade on their image? They make huge amounts from endorsements. Why should it be ok for everyone to year about the ' family man who loves his kids' and not that he enjoys fucking prostitutes st the weekend?

That's not a very nice way to talk about imogen....

I see a super injunction coming on