Paul Weller and his wife call for child privacy changes...

Seems they're envisioning making it against the law for news reports to publish photos of children :) but obviously to be enforceable it would been to be a much more sweeping law, but frankly it has to be about the most un-enforceable laws in the world of all time, was was it a few years ago Facebook alone surpassed 2 billion photos uploaded in a year....and that's just one of a limitless number of platforms, before you look at the more traditional media....

Sorry but in a democratic country this would be a practically impossible law to try and enact
 
Maybe the world of celebs needs to look at their own parenting skills (recent news)
To me it's just another so called celeb wife with nothing better to do.

Theses people want all the trapping of their wealth and their life style,till it backfire on them,then they whinge & whine.
And the wife herself need to look at the market that wants to see theses photos,sorry ladies but it is mainly a female market.

:(:mad:
 
Whilst I think the idea of a change of law is ridiculous, all of the 'these people want it all their own way ....' Is complete [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER]. It's the kind of drivel peddled by the red tops to protect the status quo and is completely without merit.

The biggest clue that the law doesn't need a change... They were already awarded damages, so the only thing that's wrong is that we don't have a suitable system in place to hold the press in check. If there was such a thing, there would be no Mail Online wall of shame to concern ourselves with, this case would not exist and we would have been spared the countdown to Emma Watson becoming 'legal'.:mad:

The hypocrisy of the Mail and the Sun et al publishing pictures of semi naked teens with no 'newsworthiness' only to titilliate their readers, whilst at the same time filling it's pages with crusades against paedos makes my blood boil. I would happily torch their headquarters with barely a care if all the editorial staff perished. The world would be a better place without them.
</rant>
:D
 
Last edited:
To be honest I doubt many would even know what Paul Weller wife or kids look like and care even less, maybe she just after her 15min of fame :(
 
Phil V said:
Whilst I think the idea of a change of law is ridiculous, all of the 'these people want it all their own way ....' Is complete [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER]. It's the kind of drivel peddled by the red tops to protect the status quo and is completely without merit.

The biggest clue that the law doesn't need a change... They were already awarded damages, so the only thing that's wrong is that we don't have a suitable system in place to hold the press in check. If there was such a thing, there would be no Mail Online wall of shame to concern ourselves with, this case would not exist and we would have been spared the countdown to Emma Watson becoming 'legal'.:mad:

The hypocrisy of the Mail and the Sun et al publishing pictures of semi naked teens with no 'newsworthiness' only to titilliate their readers, whilst at the same time filling it's pages with crusades against paedos makes my blood boil. I would happily torch their headquarters with barely a care if all the editorial staff perished. The world would be a better place without them.
</rant>
:D
Click to expand...


....and breath !

Seriously though Phil, I am in total agreement.
 
simonblue said:
To be honest I doubt many would even know what Paul Weller wife or kids look like and care even less, maybe she just after her 15min of fame :(
Click to expand...
Sure, I'd imagine that someone who's managed to live with a musical legend for 10 years without managing to get in the newspapers before thought it was her big chance:ROFLMAO:

Or maybe just, she thought that pictures of her children in a newspaper for no reason whatsoever is an invasion of their privacy?

Examine those 2 sentences. No we didn't know what they looked like, nor did we care, till the flipping Daily Fail decided to invade their private lives for no reason whatsoever. I can't believe that you even believe that this is some publicity seeking wannabe? It's a bit of a stretch for a living organism to conclude.
 
Phil V said:
Sure, I'd imagine that someone who's managed to live with a musical legend for 10 years without managing to get in the newspapers before thought it was her big chance:ROFLMAO:

Or maybe just, she thought that pictures of her children in a newspaper for no reason whatsoever is an invasion of their privacy?

Examine those 2 sentences. No we didn't know what they looked like, nor did we care, till the flipping Daily Fail decided to invade their private lives for no reason whatsoever. I can't believe that you even believe that this is some publicity seeking wannabe? It's a bit of a stretch for a living organism to conclude.
Click to expand...

I don't know Phil some of them will do anything to stay in the limelight, and he was a great musical legend and I have his albums, but lately he been less and less in the limelight.
As for the Daily Fail yes you may be right, but they have been made to paid damages and the photos have been taken down, and with all the upsides fame can sometimes bring, their are downsides and one of them is you might lose some of your privacy.
And again why not have a go at the people who look at theses sorts of photos, without an market paper wouldn't published them.

:)
 
I have no idea who Paul Weller is, never heard of him, and I haven't seen the 'article' 'photos' either so what's the big deal.
 
simonblue said:
I don't know Phil some of them will do anything to stay in the limelight
Click to expand...
simonblue said:
, and he was a great musical legend and I have his albums, but lately he been less and less in the limelight.
As for the Daily Fail yes you may be right, but they have been made to paid damages and the photos have been taken down, and with all the upsides fame can sometimes bring, their are downsides and one of them is you might lose some of your privacy.
And again why not have a go at the people who look at theses sorts of photos, without an market paper wouldn't published them.

:)
Click to expand...
She's never been in the limelight or sought the limelight, she's not famous and she doesn't want to be.

That's the whole point. Step back, ignore what you think you know about celebrities. The story is simple: Musicians wife, who has happily stayed at home looking after the kids and has never appeared in a single newspaper article makes a right noise because her children's privacy has been invaded.

There's no ambiguity here. She's not famous, never wanted to be, she's just a mum trying to protect her kids. Why because she's married to a 'musician' do you assume she's seeking attention?

Like I said, a change in the law is a stretch, but it's ridiculous after the millions spent on a huge public enquiry that the press think they can just ignore all their own guidelines.
 
Maybe I am wrong but I think people saying they don't know who Paul seller is are joking, he is famous as " the mod father" as for his political views...
 
Phil V said:
Like I said, a change in the law is a stretch, but it's ridiculous after the millions spent on a huge public enquiry that the press think they can just ignore all their own guidelines.
Click to expand...

end of the day 'the public gets what the public wants' ;)
 
those braying sheep on the tv screen
make this boy shout , this boy scream
 
Phil V said:
She's never been in the limelight or sought the limelight, she's not famous and she doesn't want to be.

That's the whole point. Step back, ignore what you think you know about celebrities. The story is simple: Musicians wife, who has happily stayed at home looking after the kids and has never appeared in a single newspaper article makes a right noise because her children's privacy has been invaded.

There's no ambiguity here. She's not famous, never wanted to be, she's just a mum trying to protect her kids. Why because she's married to a 'musician' do you assume she's seeking attention?

Like I said, a change in the law is a stretch, but it's ridiculous after the millions spent on a huge public enquiry that the press think they can just ignore all their own guidelines.
Click to expand...

She has done the job of protecting her children by taking the paper to court, and by making the statement outside the law court she drawing attention to herself, and part of the daily fail defence was that they had at time as an family put themselves in the public eye.

As for the millions of pounds spent on an public enquiry, it did turn out to be taken over by celebrity moaning and whining about how hard done by.

And as I have said why do paper published such photos, they are of no interest to me, to me this whole celeb culture has destroyed the photojournalist market, and celeb do love it when the publicity is in their favour, which help their career to make money.

Haven't got much time for both sides :(
 
simonblue said:
why do paper published such photos,
Click to expand...

cos they are in the business of selling papers and that's what the - largely female - femail audience wants to read about - celeb gossip, pics of celebs, build em up and knock em down - we think its borrrring but we aren't the target audience
 
simonblue said:
She has done the job of protecting her children by taking the paper to court, and by making the statement outside the law court she drawing attention to herself, and part of the daily fail defence was that they had at time as an family put themselves in the public eye.

As for the millions of pounds spent on an public enquiry, it did turn out to be taken over by celebrity moaning and whining about how hard done by.

And as I have said why do paper published such photos, they are of no interest to me, to me this whole celeb culture has destroyed the photojournalist market, and celeb do love it when the publicity is in their favour, which help their career to make money.

Haven't got much time for both sides :(
Click to expand...
I agree with everything here but the 'celebrity' bit.

I don't see Paul Weller as a 'celebrity', he's a musician, and his wife is definitely not a celebrity, I've got every one of his albums, I've seen him on all his solo tours, I could pick out every member of his band in a lineup (I'd maybe miss a few of the early members who only stayed a while). But I didn't know what his Mrs looked like till I read that article, she does not fit anything that anyone would describe as 'celebrity'. She's the wife of a professional musician who happens to be quite famous. Only in some twisted media description does that come close to 'celebrity'.

And only in the tabloid world would the Leveson enquiry be turned into 'celebrities moaning about being hard done by'. There is no justification for goading people to create news stories, for making up stories or for invasions of privacy that are not 'in the public interest'. Unfortunately the dumbed down celebrity obsessed media that you and I both hate have managed to convince you that because celebrities sometimes have a mutual relationship with the press then they're 'fair game'. I'm sorry but it's a 'she was asking for it' defence, and I have no time for it at all.
 
big soft moose said:
cos they are in the business of selling papers and that's what the - largely female - femail audience wants to read about - celeb gossip, pics of celebs, build em up and knock em down - we think its borrrring but we aren't the target audience
Click to expand...

Yep your right I did point that out in my first post, so why doesn't Mrs Weller have a go at this female audience, after all she is female ? :(
 
Phil V said:
. I'm sorry but it's a 'she was asking for it' defence, and I have no time for it at all.
Click to expand...

to be fair a google search does throw up a fair few examples of Hannah weller playing the publicity game - such as posting pictures of her baby bump on twitter
 
simonblue said:
Yep your right I did point that out in my first post, so why doesn't Mrs Weller have a go at this female audience, after all she is female ? :(
Click to expand...
Cos the audience didn't publish the picture?

It's fairly difficult telling large sections of society to grow up and act like adults. I've tried it with individuals, they're so sucked into what they've been fed and have no comprehension of questioning the reason they believe stuff.
 
simonblue said:
Yep your right I did point that out in my first post, so why doesn't Mrs Weller have a go at this female audience, after all she is female ? :(
Click to expand...

because having a pop at the readership who demand these things wouldn't play well in public - the papers themselves are an easier target - especially after Levenson (Cynical moi ?) - its like the double standard you see all the time with the mumsnet/netmums generation ... I don't want my kids photographed because 'evil paedophiles might get the images ... but hey I'm happy to upload 400 photos of them on my facebook page because obviously no paedophile ever looks for images there....
 
Phil V said:
Cos the audience didn't publish the picture?
.
Click to expand...

true but they caused it to be published - if the readership had no interest in celebrity gossip then the paper wouldn't print it
 
Phil V said:
Cos the audience didn't publish the picture?

It's fairly difficult telling large sections of society to grow up and act like adults. I've tried it with individuals, they're so sucked into what they've been fed and have no comprehension of questioning the reason they believe stuff.
Click to expand...

You could also look at it as some of theses people may buy their albums, which if they have a go at may affect their income if they p*** them off, which again is all about money, the thing she accuses the papers of.
Greed :(
 
Last edited:
simonblue said:
You could also look at it as some of theses people may buy their albums, which if they have a go at may affect their income if they p*** them off, which again is all about money, the thing she accuses the papers of.
Greed :(
Click to expand...
That's so twisted it fails to be a point.

If you haven't been to a Paul Weller gig for a few years, I can assure you with no uncertainty, they're not a Daily Mail crowd ;)

Simon, as I've already said - that line is the one the trashy press use to justify their existence. It's a 'she was asking for it, wearing a mini skirt...' defence and you ought to be able to see that.
 
Yes I Agee in some way, but its always the same old story.
Love the press when we need them, hate them when they don't, anyway I hope the campaign fails that's all I can say :(
 
By the way Phil she not that a private lady,she did post an selfie of herself pregnant standing in front of a full length mirror just in her kinkier on twitter,and their are plenty of photos of her all glam up at various Hollywood parties.
Hardly the shy reserve lady your making her out to be,she in the celeb world as much as the rest of them.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02631/paul-weller_2631636b.jpg
 
Last edited:
I'm a fat old ugly git, but was stalked in slightly slimmer, better looking and younger day. I still wanted to look good by the outside pool and although there were no togs or blogs on me it was a very diffiicult time. It must be hard to live a normal life and have peeps on your back all the while just cos you're married to an old singer.
 
Last edited:
artyman said:
I have no idea who Paul Weller is, never heard of him, and I haven't seen the 'article' 'photos' either so what's the big deal.
Click to expand...

The big deal would be,it would become a minefield for any photographer who even went near a child with a camera.

:(
 
Steve Smith said:
It would actually be a minefield for the publisher rather than the photographer.


Steve.
Click to expand...

The general public would not distinguish between taking and publishing a photograph. They would be vaguely aware that there is a law somewhere about childrens' photographs. This would impact on any "discussions" between photographers and the public.

Furthermore most photographers on here are publishers too albeit mainly on Flickr etc. Would I have to pixelate the face of the young Uros girl I took in Peru and put on Flickr? It's not going to happen of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top