Sunday, May 29, 2011

Hemming to out all celebrities


John Hemming is going to out all the celebrities with injunctions. We hope he does.

"If people are going to take action against ordinary people gossiping on Twitter I think they should be outed and this is why I outed Ryan Giggs. If you want to go round locking people up just because they have done something naughty to you by gossiping, you should at least say who you are.We can’t have secret trials, where you don’t know who’s prosecuting, you don’t know who the defendant is and you don’t know what is the case.”

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/249468/John-Hemming-I-ll-name-all-the-celebrities-with-injunctions

10 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Despite the fact that every few posts you do try and remind us that this is about Very Important Principles, by and large this blog retains a sanctimonious tone, underpinned by speculation. Primarily the building blocks here are pretty flimsy - it's all in the public interest, the media are just doing their job, women are victims (yeah Imogen is counting the money and she never EVER wanted to be well known which is why she went on a reality show), someone who made his career as footballer is now supposed to be a role model for every bloke out there (and none of them ever cheat). Privacy is a personal right. Superinjunctions and injunctions may not be the best way but tell me this: if poor people could get them and they were freely available, would that be ok? Or is this some faux class war thing. BTW if I were to sleep with you, could I tell anyone?

    ReplyDelete
  3. ^^^ it's not about prurience, it's about people using the law to cover up their indiscretions because they can, because they are rich. Your argument seems to be that boo sucks poor people complaining they cannot get one too! It is not about that. It is not even about people taking the moral high ground about affairs. The point is, affair's are NEVER private since some people always know about it. Plus it is not part of family life. Normal people are in the newspapers for immoral behaviour such as the bloke who has 10 children etc. However famous people generally receive their money from the poor people you wish to mock so much. Ticket sales, brands, merchandise etc etc...it is absolutely the right of the 'fan' to know if the brand they are buying into is shonky or not. People are attracted to people they can empathise with and who they respect. People who always talk about their families, that they are the best father in the world etc etc in interviews - why should they not be exposed when they have breached their own family life for personal gain in the first place? If you are a womaniser, don't rabbit on and on about what a great family man you are and then not expect the newspapers (who have contributed greatly to your 'image' by printing countless interviews about your family life and your gushing praise of your wife, kids etc) to print your misdeeds when they are exposed. Yes I am thinking of the alleged injunctions of the Beckhams, Mourinho, Ramsey etc who make a living out of cashing in on their family lives. Very hypocritical of them to complain when the 'real' them gets exposed. Their alleged injunctions should not have been granted as they breached their own privacy themselves with exclusive interviews and brands etc.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think you are punching above your weight here sweetie. Philosophically one can be a great family man and screw other women. And in any case the transaction between fan and footballer is this: You buy a ticket and expect them to win. End of. I don't recall an official decree that says everyone in the public eye is a role model. That is so middle England of you. But then I guess this appeals to your provincial nature.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ha ha ha...how many assumptions can you fit into one post. You can be a family man whilst screwing around? - They must introduce that line into wedding vows, I'm sure it would be a winner - not! You clearly are unable to comprehend anything I have said in the above post. Therefore you are either an idiot, a Madam of a brothel or a Privacy solicitor. Not sure why you are even on this blog if your intention is to campaign for a censored society. Why don't you go and have tea and cake with Hugh Grant or something!!

    ReplyDelete
  6. yes. its nice to know what is going on in the country!!

    ReplyDelete
  7. All this Bullshit is baffling me. It appears there's a spat going on between two people and we don't know who they are. WE HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW THEIR NAMES!! Expose them NOW!!

    ReplyDelete
  8. I agree. We have a right to know the names of the people behind this blog and tweeting the injunction. After all, they're in a now-very-public spat with the legal system.

    ReplyDelete
  9. John Hemming's just a troll. He's not crusading for free speech by outing Giggs as the guy with an affair. He's just jealous that while Giggs succeeded in getting an injunction to keep an (alleged) affair out of the paper, he himself was unable to keep some twenty-five incidents of infidelity out of the press.

    ReplyDelete