Ruth Kelly

Ruth Kelly is to refer the Daily Mirror to the Press Complaints Commission - say the BBC
 
Why has this got three pages? Forum row?

I can`t be arsed reading the thread, such a fucking non-story designed by the tory press to get the masses riled.
 
There's no need for bad language, young man. :lol: You're not going to go off on another all-swearing grumblefest again so soon, are you?
 
No, but it`s like the papers over report a story and everyone falls for it.

The Express led with Diana again twice (at least) this week. Shall we have a thread about that?
 
Originally posted by krizon@Jan 11 2007, 08:32 PM
On what grounds, pray tell? (Please save me from being seen buying the Mirror tomorrow to find out!)
Click to expand...
Unjustified interference with her son's privacy.
 
I know what you mean, though, Euro - I also deplore the way that Diana's bones are raked over and over, and now Prince Willie's girlfriend looks like getting the same treatment, too. The levels of intrusion into the most private parts of lives, whether they're hugely public people or not, should be off-limits. I don't think anyone's 'entitled' to know that someone has a romantic relationship with their pet goat, however much it might spice up conversation.

Thanks, Ardross.
 
On what grounds, pray tell? (Please save me from being seen buying the Mirror tomorrow to find out!)


Unjustified interference with her son's privacy.
Click to expand...

what a load of crap

what does she want? Goverment (or opus dei) control of the press?

Shes decided to put herself in the public eye with her overachieving career, so she will just have to live with it

Not as if public opinion has been that hostile anyway. She should drop this, but given her non existant political instincts, she wont...
 
Exactly Colin...

Amazing isnt it? She might supposedly be some sort of egghead, but clever, she isnt
 
The complaint is on behalf of the child not her .

I think they have a serious case to answer on that basis as the test is what is in the public interest not what is of interest to the public .
 
Not on

Public should be allowed to know and then decide if its "in their interest"

Her choice of schooling should be covered by what? Official secrets?

The WORST scenario of all is politicians, Judiciary and self appointed guardians deciding what we should or shouldnt know

My guess on this is that the public have been told and frankly dont care too much, which makes her proposed action even more stupid

a useless politician if there ever was one
 
I shall try and explain this once .

The rights of privacy under the PCC Code are individual - thus the child is entitled to his right to privacy whoever his mother is .

A child has the right not to have their health or educational difficulties splashed all over the papers unless it is in the public interest . The right being individual although the parent in such a position may to extent lose their right to privay no child's privacy should be invaded on the strength of who their parents are .

It is the law that decides what people should or cannot know - the Data Protection and Freedom of Information Acts
 
Dont patronise

The issue is not just the "childs privacy" as you know. Its the choice that the parents have made that concerns some, especially as it could be seen as having a political angle

Anyway, what some act or code says doesnt change my opinion that if you choose to be in the public eye, then your life choices are going to come under scrutiny

I fervently hope shes stuffed on this one and made to look like the lightwieght automaton clown that she is

You think that "socialist" MP's deciding to send their kids to exclusive schools is none of the electorates business?

Personally i cdont really care what she does, but this pathetic attempt to gag the press deserves to fail
 
I am not patronising you I was seeking to explain the law . I am not going to discuss it further.
 
See today from the Observer that she has blocked certain gay rights in the UK which are being enacted in Northern ireland (of all places...)

(Im not gay btw...in case anyone thinks its relevant)

A sinister piece of work. Quicker this so called politician's career is ended...the better
 
See that her problems with Gays and the opus Dei factor are resurfacing. Whatever your views on the adoptions, the special pleading shes trying to make on behalf of the catholic church is completely wrong

She has split th cabinet badly by all accounts and patience must be wearing thin with this religous maniac

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2175038.ece

Independent oN sunday hammered her yesterday too


An inglorious career headed for the buffers ...i hope
 
What's wrong with all this is that men and women who were essentially homosexual or lesbian, have been made to marry by the forces of society down the centuries, whether in the West, the Middle East, or Far East, as their religious diktats demanded. They were expected to have children, and so children have historically always been begotten by and brought up by parents where one, and perhaps even both, have had a preference for a same sex orientation, but were precluded from expressing such desires.

Equally, children have been born into bisexual partnerships, with apparently none worse the wear for it. So this tosh about not giving a religious blessing to OVERT, rather than covert, gay/lesbian relationships re children (either via IVF, AI, adoption or good old plain intercourse) is hypocritical and absurd.

It's not a question, Miz Kelly, as to whether gay or lesbian couples 'could' make good parents. The answer is that they've been doing so, but under the duress of a 'straight' marriage, for eons. What was worse, was that in many cases, the non-straight partner would often find the love of their life outside of these marriages, and be unable to live openly - as many still can't, particularly in strict Christian and Muslim communities - and pursue a sometimes lifetime affair, to the detriment of home life.

One would hope that in the 21C, gone are the days when a wife was shocked to find out that her husband and father of their children was, in fact, also a homosexual with a partner of years 'on the side'. But it isn't true, this is still happening, and why on earth should it stupidly persist when non-straights are still hounded and vilified by religious bodies, let alone with the bias of government ministers applying their will?
 
KERRRR-ASH! Sorry, just fell off me chair...

Look, that's twice we've agreed in the past six months. STOP IT!

:D
 
Given their systematic cover ups of child sexual abuse, the question that should be asked is why the hell are the Catholic Church allowed to run adoption agencies?
 
Back
Top