i had no strong feelings about the current spate of injunctions and super-injunctions which allow the rich to, possibly, gag the press when it comes to revelations of their indescretions.
true the whole thing is lopsided in that the weaker of the two parties (normally the woman) is left out in the open and unable to defend herself.
the reason i had no strong feelings about it all was simply because i don't care if some celebrity is sticking his dick where the sun don't shine while lying to his wife. it is none of my business what the son of the former leader of the british union of fascists gets up to in privacy of his spare time (i might be envious, but that is a different matter altogether).
no matter how you slice and dice it the only reason some of these revelations are in the 'public interest' is because the public have learnt to love salicious gossip masquerading as news.
the public believes it own celebrity and there must have the right to know everything about them. the press encourage this; their justification being that the public has a right to know what these public figures get up because they are famous and that somehow or another makes you a role model of some sort. thus when you have tarnished your image then you have to suffer the slings and arrows.
frankly just let them get on with the extra marital shagging or the visits to the local whore. who really cares? not i.
why do i say that?
mostly because these are people who, in the main, i wouldn't want to be a role model to any children (or adults), they become 'role models' because the press want something to beat them over the head with. we can't just be happy with whatever it is that makes them celebrities - we have to be able to tear them down.
it is safe to say i am no lover of celebrity (that of course will change when i am rich and famous). nor did i care much about the injnctions.
so what has changed i can hear you ask?
simple i head read that jeremy clarkson was for super injunctions and that swunf me around. it was bad enough being on the side of the tories during the av debate there is just no way i am going to appear on the same side as clarkson.
so i am now against injunctions and super injunctions being used to hide the fact that someone rich and famous did nothing very wrong, did something that most people do or have done. it is wrong to cheat on your wife or girlfriend but if they do it should be no one else's business.
it appears the rumours of mr. clarkson cheating on his wife are no more than that.
my advice to clarkson is: save the money: spend it wisely and next time keep your dick in your trousers. then no one has to worry.
true the whole thing is lopsided in that the weaker of the two parties (normally the woman) is left out in the open and unable to defend herself.
the reason i had no strong feelings about it all was simply because i don't care if some celebrity is sticking his dick where the sun don't shine while lying to his wife. it is none of my business what the son of the former leader of the british union of fascists gets up to in privacy of his spare time (i might be envious, but that is a different matter altogether).
no matter how you slice and dice it the only reason some of these revelations are in the 'public interest' is because the public have learnt to love salicious gossip masquerading as news.
the public believes it own celebrity and there must have the right to know everything about them. the press encourage this; their justification being that the public has a right to know what these public figures get up because they are famous and that somehow or another makes you a role model of some sort. thus when you have tarnished your image then you have to suffer the slings and arrows.
frankly just let them get on with the extra marital shagging or the visits to the local whore. who really cares? not i.
why do i say that?
mostly because these are people who, in the main, i wouldn't want to be a role model to any children (or adults), they become 'role models' because the press want something to beat them over the head with. we can't just be happy with whatever it is that makes them celebrities - we have to be able to tear them down.
it is safe to say i am no lover of celebrity (that of course will change when i am rich and famous). nor did i care much about the injnctions.
so what has changed i can hear you ask?
simple i head read that jeremy clarkson was for super injunctions and that swunf me around. it was bad enough being on the side of the tories during the av debate there is just no way i am going to appear on the same side as clarkson.
so i am now against injunctions and super injunctions being used to hide the fact that someone rich and famous did nothing very wrong, did something that most people do or have done. it is wrong to cheat on your wife or girlfriend but if they do it should be no one else's business.
it appears the rumours of mr. clarkson cheating on his wife are no more than that.
my advice to clarkson is: save the money: spend it wisely and next time keep your dick in your trousers. then no one has to worry.
No comments:
Post a Comment