"As I said during the Tiger Woods saga, we don't really learn anything new by all this. I would appear to be in the minority by thinking that people are entitled to their own privacy during these times - though of course that would mean everyone wanting things to stay private. Clearly, someone wanted this to go public, and I don't think it's beyond realms to suspect that a little bit of money has changed hands at some point, via Max Clifford and associates." Taken from above article - Check it out.
George Says:
The issue about the captaincy is a sporting, and rather pointless one. This is and should have stayed a private matter between the families. If Terry has shown a certain level of sporting courage (against Burnley), albeit, again, a rather pointless one; his reaction, as a person, by going and apologising, face-to-face with Wayne Bridge, would show far more character. We know nothing of each of the relationships involved, that level of debate would be far too detailed and balanced for the press, but he has betrayed someone, and he should, privately, do the last decent option left for him.
The important issue for society is the fact that a judge rules it is in the public interest for the press to be allowed to print this story. An individual with character flaws. What they refuse to overturn is the super-injunction of an oil-refinery firm (Trafigura), and its dumping of toxic waste. Or the illness this caused to thousands of locals.
This is not in the public interest, according to the laws of our land.
So we, the public, are interested in this, that is the simple fact, and we should be asking more questions about that, than the above examples of press freedom and censure.
The important issue for society is the fact that a judge rules it is in the public interest for the press to be allowed to print this story. An individual with character flaws. What they refuse to overturn is the super-injunction of an oil-refinery firm (Trafigura), and its dumping of toxic waste. Or the illness this caused to thousands of locals.
This is not in the public interest, according to the laws of our land.
So we, the public, are interested in this, that is the simple fact, and we should be asking more questions about that, than the above examples of press freedom and censure.
Four Star said:
I hate the gloating that goes on in the red tops when this kind of thing is revealed but by /not/ reporting it they would still affect the lives of thousands of England supporters. You may say football, schmootball but that doesn't mean those people don't want to know.
Slightly devil's advocate, but as Matthew said in the first comment, sporting endeavour is affected by social misdemeanour, and that can't be right.
Slightly devil's advocate, but as Matthew said in the first comment, sporting endeavour is affected by social misdemeanour, and that can't be right.
George Says:
I honestly, could not care less about John Terry's private life more than I would the guy who lives 14 doors to the left of my uncle who lives 45 miles away from my Grandma. The super-injunction is the issue, and it is a ridiculous legal get-out-of-jail for about a million card. It should not exist, and the worst thing about the whole argument, is that a judge thinks it is more in the 'public interest' than polluting peoples breathing apparatus with toxic sludge, which incidentally had just turned a nice little profit. Oh the joys of the rule of law.
No comments:
Post a Comment