Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: super injunctions-the media now rules
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
veritas |
think of the children |
|
In The Know |
So, MD, women are mere chattels that can have their rights decided by men are they ?
Not sure many would agree with that. |
|
The MD |
In The Know wrote:
Why should a man's wife and kids suffer humiliation, embarrassment and publicity etc, simply because their father can't keep his trousers zipped?
And why should a slapper profit from all this?
The moment a man puts his kippers under another woman's grill, he's automatically (or by default) decided to take that risk on behalf of his family, and whether "retribution" comes via neighbourhood gossip, the other woman telling the wife in person, or a newspaper headline, shouldn't make any difference (though I certainly think Giggs' actions have made everything incalculably worse.) The reason this case got under the skin of the public (albeit stoked by the media's agenda), is because the law was effectively telling us we were banned from gossiping over the garden fence, and that a rich guilty man was being allowed to buy privacy off the rack.
(And if he was being blackmailed, he should have taken the David Letterman route - lure the blackmailer into a sting operation with the police, then confess all on TV - worth Google/YouTubing if anyone's unaware of it.) |
|
In The Know |
angel wrote:
Why should a man's wife not know that her husband has been unfaithful?
I think she should .... but do we really want the national press peering through everyone's bedroom window, just in case?
After all - they are not interested in protecting the wife / kids - they simply want a story (and dont care who they tread on to get it). |
|
JK2006 |
There are so many reasons, Angel, that I cannot begin to list them here but just point you to Mr Paul Simon. |
|
|
|
