Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,683
- Location
- Warwickshire
Trading on an image does not equate to an obligation to lead the perfect life.
RYAN GIGGS
- Thread starter AGD
- Start date
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
And that justifies mass public interest in what happens in his bedroom errr... how exactly?
Obviously your concern towards the marketing executive is lovely, but it's his problem and not yours and doesn't justify the general publics insationable obsession with the private lives of people richer than they are.
Unless you actually think the only reason anyone is interested in this sort of stuff is because the people in question have advertising contracts?
[TW]Fox;19205865 said:
We were talking about privacy in general.
[TW]Fox;19205865 said:
So basically you were making no comment on the current interpretation of privacy law by senior judges, rather you were lamenting people being interested in celeb gossip? Well I think we can all agree on that. But you did state that it was acceptable for someone to make money by lying or being hypocritical to the public.
[TW]Fox;19205865 said:
Here, you are oversimplifying things. Brands are effective because they can encompass a wide range of feelings and beliefs - all of which can subtly effect people's affection for the brand and therefore that brand's selling power. You do not need a direct relationship between the good sold and sales campaign and the misdemeanour involved for it to have an effect on the buyer's intentions. And what if giggs turned around tomorrow and fronted an ad by pretending to be a family man? Would we then be entitled to go through his (previously and previous) private life?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
No it doesn't, you're right but if you're going to be purveying a falsehood i.e. committed family man or say a road safety activist then respectively being caught cheating on your wife or driving dangerously are things that can/would/should affect that image.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2008
- Posts
- 26,303
You might be. I'm talking about a) The Giggs case and b) Societies obsession with peoples private lives and more specifically how a) would be a non-issue if it were not for b).
Correct.
No, I said it doesn't justify intense public interest in that persons private life. I don't think it's acceptable, but I don't think it means we have a 'right' to know either. I don't particularly think there is that much hypocrisy in the Giggs case anyway.
I bet numerous people in this thread have done the same thing. I wonder how they'd like having the details in a newspaper?
No, we should never be entitled to do that. Any issues regarding his behaviour, should they come to light, are an issue that is between him and whoever he has signed a contract with, not the rest of the country, unless he has broken the law.
The worst thing about all this is the gutter press talking about freedom of the press, and the public good.
Its insulting to those in places where they don't have freedom to print what they want on much more important stuff than who is shagging who.
Its insulting to those in places where they don't have freedom to print what they want on much more important stuff than who is shagging who.
Funny how her old fella was quoted as saying his daughter isnt a "slapper" (or words to that effect) Heads up son, she is. 
....but a good one
.
Good luck with trying to censor every football fan from revealing it next season
....but a good one
.Good luck with trying to censor every football fan from revealing it next season
Forgive me if I don't cry her a river. I won't comment on her motives on the forum because this all seems a bit dodgy, but I think it's far from how you've just portrayed it.
After all, in the beginning, only two people knew what had happened..
[TW]Fox;19205968 said:
So you think that if some celeb was say, selling a book on how to have successful marriage, it would be acceptable for the legal system to allow them them to prevent the papers (or anyone) mentioning an affair they'd just had? You don't seem to believe that some things can be in the public interest with regard to private life. Crazy!
Whats crazy is how you seem unable to comprehend what it is I'm saying. I'll split it down into bitesize chunks to help you.
a) I think the publics interest in other peoples private lives is pathetic and ridiculous
b) I think somebodies private life is just that - private unless they wish otherwise
c) I think that none of this would have been a problem in the first place, and neither would anyone need an injunction, had a) not applied.
I have actually *not* said that I feel it's acceptable for people to take out injunctions. All I've said about the injunction is how it would never have been needed in the first place were it not for the gutter press and the people who lap up the dross they print.
If it makes you feel better, I think the whole injunction thing is ridiculous and counterproductive. But it's a symptom of a greater problem.
It is quite obvious that the public are, sadly, interested in the private lives of celebrities. This is not the same thing as these private lives being IN the public interest.
I didn't realise that, no.
So she didn't go to the press. He obviously, didn't go to the press.
Did he have an audience in the bedroom or something then? Who went to the press?