Avram Grant and Privacy Law

[Gromit]

Avram Grant has been caught visiting a brothel near to his club's ground. This was reported in a newspaper last year as "Unnamed Premiership Manager visits brothel". The newspaper blamed “creeping privacy laws” for preventing it from publishing further details. It followed a number of cases in which wealthy and famous individuals had successfully gagged the media.

1. Mr Grant has not committed an offense, should it be reported?
2. Should Mr Grant be able to invoke the law to keep his name out of the paper?

[jackthehat]

It would be nice if the newspapers didn't believe that this sort of thing interested us.

[rov1200]

Brothels should be legalised. Then the prostitutes can be medically checked and the government could receive taxes for the work they provide. It will also end the stigma of kerb crawling and make it legal for the punter.

[jake-the-peg]

2. Yes he should - I can't see a public interest defense here - unless anyone can see one

[fredpuli47]

1. No. It shouldn't because it shouldn't be of general interest to the readership.Unfortunately it is.
2. No. In spite of the fact that it's not a crime, the newspapers should not be banned from reporting it.He can't sue them for libel if it's true. Celebrities who misbehave have no more right to secrecy about it than anybody else has,certainly when the misbehaviour is outside the confines of their home. But using long lenses to take photos of activity in their own bedrooms deserves to be forbidden!

[MarkRae]

That's the point. The papers want to run the story because they know it will sell papers.

Which is the more pitiable: the public for having an almost obsessive fascination with the private lives of celebrities; or the newspapers for wanting to exploit that obsession for financial gain?

[another-view]

It was all over the internet anyway, so these "privacy laws" are a joke.

[youngmafbog]

Has he not commited an offence ?

[ludwig]

1. No.
2. Yes. There's a difference between the public being interested in something, and something being in the public interest.

If he was some kind of political or religious leader who spent his time telling other people how to live their lives there might be a case for exposing his hypocrisy, but he isn't.

[Gromit]

youngmafbog

No, Using the services of a prostitute is not an offense, Kerb crawling is, but that wasn't the case here.

[ludwig]

..and by the way, same applies to John Terry. Honestly, could anyone give a flying F. what goes on in his private life? you could?, well you need to get out more.
It shouldn't be in all over the news.

[MarkRae]

I couldn't agree more! The John Terry incident should be of concern only to the parties involved and to their immediate families.

It's the same question as why people read The Sun, or watch Big Brother / I'm a "Celebrity" / Survivor or whatever it was called...

[anotheoldgit]

Question best suited for the Celebrity Gossip tag, or even Chatterbox.

[Gromit]

AOG

This is a question about the Privacy Law v. Free Speech. It is about Censorship and the media. Sorry you though it was a Celebrity Question.

The lack of muslims might explain your disinterest.

[fredpuli47]

We could hardly complain if we commited adultery and the other party sold the story to the press, or if we drove too fast and it made headlines.The only difference is the press wouldn't be interested unless we happened to be a film star or premiership footballer or the like.Why are the press interested? Because we are assumed, correctly, to be interested in gossip whether it's about Mrs Bloggs next door or John Terry or Katie Price. The stars have the advantage. They can sue for libel if the story is untrue whereas Mrs Bloggs can't but, more than that, they get a good living from the public interest in everything else they do, even how they dress,and from selling ghosted 'autobiographies'.They can't it have both ways.If they take from the public with one hand, to their own profit they can't stop the public learning , to their own loss, with the other.
Only if we are to give the Mrs Bloggs of this world the same rights to privacy and access to the courts that stars seek should we recast the law. If we do it should grant very limited rights to privacy, broadly protecting citizens from interception of mail and intrusion into their homes.

[Sandy-Wroe]

Some of the public might be interested in this story. But is it in the public interest? He doesn't stand up and pontificate about how other people should lead their lives. What he did isn't illegal, as far as I know.
What business is it of ours what he does?