Who is the Manager?

  ened 11:25 24 Dec 09
Locked

Apparently the Sun did an expose of an unnamed Premiership Manager who went to a back-street brothel.

Unnamed because he is hiding behind privacy laws which have been made by the use of the law of precedent rather than an Act of Parliament.

Quite frankly I don't care who he is, but do we have a right to know? Supposing it was one of our law-makers, like Harriet Harman (in her case it would presumably be a male escort) shouldn't we be entitled to know then?

  Picklefactory 11:46 24 Dec 09

For me at least, as long as they continued to do their job competently and professionally, and the person caused no offence or issues for anyone else, I don't see it's anyone elses business but their own and maybe their families
It is a personal thing and I feel it should remain out of the public domain unless it has a direct effect on the public.

  bri-an 12:49 24 Dec 09

A premiership manager is not in 'public office', he is simply an employee.
So, it must follow that we should all be entitled to be informed about every indiscretion of every employee, then?
I think not.

  bri-an 13:07 24 Dec 09

Why on earth would you WANT to know such details of someone's private life, anyway? Let him get on with it and enjoy your Xmas, possibly try a different newspaper in the New Year?

  ened 13:08 24 Dec 09

If politician 'A' stands on an anti-prostitution platform as part of his manifesto but is secretly visiting them, surely it is in the public interest that his hypocrisy is exposed?

bri-an

That is a spurious argument - not all your average employees are in the public eye and also representing the National Game.

We should remember the only reason Mosley won his case was because of the use by the NOTW of the word 'Nazi'. Despite the fact there was symbolism of that theme, the judge decided it was not proven!

  Grey Goo 13:10 24 Dec 09

Harridan Harperson, only Perseus would take her on and then only with a mirror.

  bri-an 13:49 24 Dec 09

Public eye - an interesting concept.
Your 'target' that you wish to be shamed is now only '..representing the National Game'.
You are opening a can of worms here, will need you to supply details of who, in your own judgement' is in the public eye - and why that deems them fair game for any perverted voyeur that's wants to know all about their sex life.

I can see the MP standing on moral issues being fair target - but a football manager?? And what level would you extend that down to, local Sunday League managers (they, too, are representing the national game)?

Your argument has more holes than a colander - but hey, have a nice Xmas. (Is the NOTW published over the holiday?).

  ened 14:12 24 Dec 09

Yet another thread dragged down!

bri-an

You have , I suspect, deliberately missed the point.

Who should be making the laws? The judges should only interpret the laws but it would appear they are perilously close to the edge.

If you care to read what I have written properly (There wasn't that much of it) I never mentioned buying or even reading the Sun

Regarding your comment about Xmas: How do you know I am a Christian?

  ened 14:31 24 Dec 09

"Trying to extrapolate from this non-story to a general principle about privacy is spurious."

You are digressing as well!

  Forum Editor 15:39 24 Dec 09

we could do without threads like this, but I suppose it's a legitimate subject for discussion so we have to allow you a platform.

Unfortunately you have - not for the first time - taken a tawdry little story from a tawdry little newspaper and tried to make something of it that just isn't there.

If a football manager wants to visit a brothel - back-street or otherwise - it's his affair, and we have no more right to know all about it than we have to know what anyone else does in his or her private life. Your rather silly attempt to morph the story into a bigger picture about privacy laws just serves to underline your complete failure to understand the paper's agenda.

In answer to your question 'do we have a right to know?' I'm amazed that you have to ask. The answer is quite obviously 'no, we don't'.

  Picklefactory 15:45 24 Dec 09

"If politician 'A' stands on an anti-prostitution platform as part of his manifesto but is secretly visiting them, surely it is in the public interest that his hypocrisy is exposed?"

Yes I think we should, but in my view total hypocrisy would not count in my book as 'competently' doing their job, when their job involves generating policy that directly affects the public and when their job is to represent the publi as a role model. I shan't give any more time to that scenario though, as I could think up any number of totally fictitious scenarios to generate a debate, but I don't see the point, really.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Surface Pro 5 News - release date, UK price, features, specs

Gear VR vs. Daydream: Which delivers the best VR experience?

iPad Pro 12.9 vs Surface Pro 5