what about privacy?

From mail:

My starting point is that the press must be free to publish. We now have privacy law, and privacy is the new libel. The difference is that under privacy law you may not publish things that are true.

My view is that if you are in the public eye, then, like it or not, you are fair game. I am not particularly judgmental about sex, but the papers have a right to publish.'

Lawyer Mark Stephens said: 'We have gone far too far with our privacy laws. There was a concern that the media was becoming more aggressive in its reporting. That has now been swung back, and the law is now being used by the rich and powerful to stifle legitimate reporting.'
Mr Stephens added: 'If one looks back in history at the infamous behaviour of David Mellor, that could not now be reported because of privacy laws. We need to redress the balance. Our courts are now being held in ill-repute.'


I think it's a good point, at first I thought well he has a right to have his privacy protected and be able to do stuff without it ending up in the paper, but then again, how far does it go? How much stuff is out there that we would not know about but for the papers revealing it? Should they be free to report anything they like if its proved they have grounds to report it?


The rest of the article:
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1238017/Premier-League-manager-caught-visiting-prostitutes-brothel.html#ixzz0aaZxXARA

Firstly, it's the Daily Mail who are the biggest set up jumped up morons on the face of the earth. Secondly, the privacy law is there to protect people who might possibly be in the public eye but don't necessarily court attention. If I managed Stockport County I'm technically in the public eye because my name will be published every other day and I will be obliged to give certain press conferences...but other than that if I didn't put myself anywehere near the tabloids, the gutter media, the TV plebs, etc. then it should be allowed that if I get done for some offence or my marriage breaks down it's my concern and no-one elses.

For too many years our press has been saturated with tittle-tattle and gossip and any law that can assist the dilution of celebrity clap that blanket covers news media and TV has to be a good thing.

And here was I thinking we were getting a thread about Tiger!!!

Would agree fully with your last statement Breeze.

Pete sells drugs to kids.

Breeze should stop reading the daily mail .

How would you know that Breeze?