While I'm just as opposed to the idea of buying legal protections as anyone else, one thing about this song jars me.
The examples. The fetishes of celebrities aren't exactly anyone's business in the first place, and it rarely has relevance in anything except a moralizing trial-by-media, an objectionable practice in itself.
Information about someone can damage them even if they haven't done anything illegal or morally wrong, if only because of the closemindedness of other people.
@Vasemmasti You see, while your point is valid, and someone's kink's and whistles are his troubles alone, the problem is controversial due to freedom of speech, and freedom of printing. I'm not taking the media-side here, they are leeches, and will tear you with anything they can, even these kind of material. But as with many legal issues, one can't choose wich laws he follows, if we did, what would happen?
@ghosttharian Yes, I understand the crux of the issue. I agree with Dan Bull on the general point. If money can buy you the silence of others, backed by law, then freedom of speech is being surrendered to those with cash.
But privacy is a right too, and I'd rather not see the private lives of people laid bare for ratings.
Trafiguras and such though? That's exactly where the problem is. Using the law to hide their wrongdoing is the hallmark of a badly dysfunctional system.
@Vasemmasti I know, right? But still. one law "outlaws" another law. Sadly, the person with more cash in his pocket chooses wich law is going to favor him. Makes you think were are we living and how are we living, right?
Wait I'm confussed. I checked up the shameless story, why did they cancel it just 'cause two of the actors had an affair? (Sorry for the bad spelling... If their is any, a bit to dark to see my keyboard atm.)
Shame on the scumbag tabloid gutter press and hourray for Ryan Giggs and the right to privacy and protection from their prying, phone hacking, lies, hypocrisy, character assassination and working up lynch mobs. Boycott the Murdoch press.
@Eiraha Giggs was never after the idiot twitter users spouting his name all over thinking they were clever while wallowing in the gutter press' juicy sex scandal games. He was wanting action only against the organisation and initial person(s) who breached the court order, which was given rightly to preserve the right to privacy from the sort of Murdoch media intrusion we see now with all the shameful hacking. Down with Murdoch, his lies, lynch mobs and character assassinations.
I hate to be the loud American stereotype here, I really do, but...
I think this is a great example of why many countries desperately need an American-style first amendment, guaranteeing and enshrining freedom of SPEECH, not merely "freedom of expression".
Say what you will about us yanks, but I think that's something we really got right.
We tolerate the Westboro Baptist Church, for sure, and it sucks, but this kind of thing would NEVER happen here.
At the end of the day, the only people to blame, are these people who did the dirty on their wives, husbands, boyfriends and girlfriends. Simply put, exercise a bit of self control and you won't have to deal with all this stuff. If I were to do the dirty, then in my job, I'd be out on my arse as quick as you can imagine.
They only have themselves to blame. And blame isn't dealt with by covering it up, it's dealt with by moving on with your life. This footballer has now ruined his reputation.
There’s a rather obvious way this is all going to end, isn’t there?
At the next general/by-election, someone’s going to stand as an independent anti-injunction candidate, simply promising to use Parliamentary privilege to read out the details of all live (super)injunctions, so they can then be openly reported.
That will put an end to all this nonsense for good…
it is only right and fair that everyone be protected from the media and their vulgar practice of trial by media. If a person has an affair it is for their partners to decide how to deal with it, not a media lynch mob. The media have a strong history of wrecking lives for profit.
DONT READ THIS CAUSE IT ACTULLY WORKS. YOU WILL BE KISSED ON THE NEAREST POSSIBLE FRIDAY BY THE LOVE OF YOUR LIFE. TOMMOROW WILL BE THE BEST DAY OF YOUR LIFE. HOWEVER IF YOU DO NOT POST THIS COMMENT TO AT LEAST 3 VIDEOS YOU WILL DIE WITHIN 2 DAYS. NOW UV STARTED READING THISï SO DUNT STOP. THIS IS SO SCARY PUT THIS ON ATï LEASTï 5 VIDEOS IN 143 MINUTESïWHEN UR DONE PRESS F6 AND URï LOVERS NAME WILL APPEAR ONTHE SCREEN IN BIG LETTERS THIS IS SO SCARY CAUSE IT ACTUALY WORKs
@BritGirlJay You miss the point completely.... the point is people can protect their secrets with money and it becomes a criminal offence to spread information about it. Which is wrong...
The footballer is now suing twitter users who have disseminated the info along with twitter itself. He is now obviously getting shite advice from lawyers who see it as a money train- if this crap had come out in the papers 6 months ago guess what WE WOULDNT CARE BY NOW
We live in a hypocritical sex-obsessed society. People, whether famous or not, should have a right not to have their sex lives all over the tabloids. The judges have to balance competing rights- certain acts disclosed in the public interest, fine, but it's not usually in the public interest to disclose someone's affair. The public seem to think they have a right to know every detail of famous people's private lives. The tabloids thrive on selling sex (and set-ups) while then passing judgment.
I'll admit that you Brits beat us Americans when it comes to culture, manners, language, soccer, and not fucking up the world. But freedom of speech is one thing that we got right.
@galarant another brit here. For the most part I agree, though it must be pointed out that absolute freedom of speech as practiced in the US also allows people to publish neo-nazi propaganda and other similarly nasty things. On the whole, I think you yanks lean just a little too far in the right direction.
@jeloopa This may be a cultural thing, but generally the US approach to that problem is to counter nasty speech with more speech. There are always plenty of people willing to speak out against hate groups, and our laws allow them to do so in any way that they choose. The result is that hate groups are publicly humiliated every time they speak up, and people wind up seeing them for the fools they are.
@jeloopa If people weren't allowed to publish and share their ideas then you stop the progression of mankind as a whole. You may not agree with their view but it's their view and at least you're able to be given free access to information that should help you develop your own view. People will always hate openly or behind closed doors and with the more information you give people you hope that you can show people how irrational hatred can be.
I think the important thing to remember about these isnt that some celebs are hiding who they're sleeping with, but that companies like Trafigura take them out to stop people and MP's from finding out/discussing the dumping of toxic waste in 3rd world countries.
The reason Britain is upposed to have FREE PRESS, is so that it forces famous people, to behave with responsility, becauuse they KNOW they might be exposed, at any time.
It has worked well, for a LONG time.
I think there is a problem, if Ryan giggs was secretly and discreetly meeting imogen, in an hotel, or at her house, or soemthing.
If he walks round in public with her, then HE is not being discreet, and has exposed himself.
Personally, i would bang the back out of her, and tell the world
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome But the press don't force people to behave responsibly- many of the British tabloids pass judgement over someone having sex (although humans have natural sexual instincts beyond monogamy) rather than killing millions. Corrupt and lying politicians, fraud or illegal acts are ripe for disclosure in the public interest but not usually someone's private sex life.
Yes, nuy if they werent allowed to publish anything which famous people did, then they would be runnign round having orgies in the street. The press emans that they alwasy have it in the back of their mind, that their wives or mother might see them.
Also, if you have a minister for health, and he's seeing rent boys in public toilets, you dont really want that covered up, so where do you draw the line ?
the 'right to privacy' argument is bogus. if it (as is claimed) is enshrined in uk/european law, then it should automatically apply to everyone, or not at all - not just if you're rich and famous
otherwise, it's a case of the law will only protect you if you can afford to pay for it.
@keef71 Yes, it should apply to all, regardless of money- that includes rich and poor alike. The poor need protecting but this doesn't mean famous people should automatically be fair game for having all their personal details exposed, often for money and sometimes involving set-ups.
Its not about the freedom of publishing and the press,its about the freedom of speech for the women involved! They could jailed for talking about their over-paid lover!
I'm not sure the issue is so simple. As long as the scumbag tabloid press continues to confuse "in the public interest" with "what interests the public", anyone famous can have their lives fucked up at any time, and that doesn't seem right. Sure, they can sue for invasion of privacy -- but by then the embarrassing information is out there and their friends and family know all kinds of shit that frankly is nobody's business. Why should you have to live in fear just because you got famous?
@somegreybloke I agree that celebrities should be entitled to their privacy, but companies dumping toxic waste in Africa shouldn't be. There's a fine line, and I think super injunctions are on the wrong side of it.
@cashford2 Totally, if actual corruption and illegality are involved. Maybe super injunctions would be okay if they could only be taken out by individuals in regards to non-criminal activities, rather than companies to cover up crime?
@somegreybloke Good point, and I don't think there is an easy answer. I just think the current law isn't working; one example: footballers who are found to be having an affair. Because the media can still say that "a footballer" is having an affair (which they do), there is then wider speculation and gossip which can be inaccurate and aimed at the wrong people. It would be better if there were stronger personal privacy laws that protected everyone, not just those people/corps with enough money
@somegreybloke The difference is that many celebrities use their profile to make more money. If thats squeaky clean profile is bullplop why should they be able to cover things up. The press arnt interested in you or me because we arnt famous, but wouldnt you maybe think twice before sleeping with hookers or having affairs if you were?
@Pentdad Unless you're a politician or a preacher who promotes family values or whatever, there's simply no connection between how a famous person makes their money and what they do in their private life. Having an affairs and sleeping with a prostitutes isn't illegal, and if you don't use your position to moralise why should anyone care what you do in your own time?
@somegreybloke Ok dude if he was from the UK we wouldnt have heard about Tiger Wood's affairs. Which means all those companies who pay him to promote their stuff would still be paying him, and we would all be buying up the lie that Tiger was this lovely husband, a model for all black people accross the world. So hey, under your rules lets all just believe in lies.
@somegreybloke The main point is, that if you have a career in the public eye that has great influence on people or society (Footballer,TV personality, Director of an international bank etc) then you should accept that there will be press interest in what you are doing and not misbehave. On the other hand, there should be no so no more so-and-so down the park with their kids pseudo-news
These people have a responsibility to NOT do anything which can damage their family and should act accordingly
@somegreybloke as a proud American, let me kindly tell you to FUCK OFF.
Fuck everything about that viewpoint.
I cannot believe that you're seriously weighing the comfort and privacy of celebrities (or anyone) against the free flow of information -- a fundamental pillar of modern civilization.
Here, this is you:
Oh gee, having the right to a fair trial before conviction is nice and all, but it could be abused by criminals, so maybe we should reconsider it...
@AnonymousElektron If someone were to hack into your PC and publish your porn folders and private emails along with your real name and address, you'd be okay with that? Or does your absolutism over free flow of information run up against any exceptions?
@somegreybloke I proudly defend the right of the westboro baptist church to picket funerals in my city -- and I also defend the rights of the lgbt folks who strip in front of them.
@somegreybloke do you think that, if my corporation made billions by infection thousands of schoolchildren with cancer, that I should have this little secret protected from public scrutiny?
It's embarrassing!!!
How dare those stupid two-bit muck-rakers spread facts about meeeeeeee!!
I'm so glad that the British government is on my side, protecting me!
And I'm thankful for blokes like you who support protecting my evil deeds.
@TheDave Those ones aren't true.. Jemima Khan has publicly denied the allegations, and the fact that there was no superinjunction concerning her & Clarkson has been verified. The silence on the others might lead us to draw our own conclusions..
I'm not sure I entirely agree. I doesn't seem right to me that the press should be able to investigate what you do in the comfort of your own bedroom, regardless of whether or not the allegations are true - it still negatively impacts the people involved. Any newspaper that indulges in that sort of invasion, deserves to be sued.
@piprod01 Deserves to be sued, yes - but super-injunctions are a different thing, they don't just forbid the disclosure of information, they forbid any acknowledgement of the injunction itself, it's like a black hole...
@piprod01 Plus, super injunctions aren't only used by celebrities to cover up affairs. If we allow this kind of thing to continue, one day there'll be a real story which actually matters which the press aren't allowed to report on or acknowledge exists (it's already nearly happened once in the case of Trafigura vs. The Guardian).
@TheFluxfox It's just some slag that wants to make money off a cheat. Why do we want that sort of thing dominating the news? It's just lame information for the idiots of society.
Spread this no matter who you are. Stick it on Facebook, send it to your friends, whatever, just spread it. When it comes to information the thing the Government fear the most is it being spread.
I would argue that this is exactly the kind of information that the government want spread. Keep us idiots occupied with celebrity gossip while they get up to all kinds of dodgy deals with Murdoch that can be freely reported but won't be because Murdoch owns the UK media.
@jeffrey44 I don't think the information itself is important, I couldn't give a shit what MP slept with which mistress, the issue at hand here is the fact you can pay to silence the media. The issue is NOT that celebrities are shagging dogs etc, the issue is that information can be legally held back for a price, and that in my mind is completely wrong.
If you are interested though, I lost my virginity a while ago to a girl called Doris.
@kn100kn100 You hit the nail on the head. I don't give a toss about the celebs, it's the principle of suppressing information if you have the cash to do so
lol frank
awesomemint 2 weeks ago
haha heerlijk.
landloper1986 3 weeks ago
While I'm just as opposed to the idea of buying legal protections as anyone else, one thing about this song jars me.
The examples. The fetishes of celebrities aren't exactly anyone's business in the first place, and it rarely has relevance in anything except a moralizing trial-by-media, an objectionable practice in itself.
Information about someone can damage them even if they haven't done anything illegal or morally wrong, if only because of the closemindedness of other people.
Vasemmasti 3 weeks ago
@Vasemmasti You see, while your point is valid, and someone's kink's and whistles are his troubles alone, the problem is controversial due to freedom of speech, and freedom of printing. I'm not taking the media-side here, they are leeches, and will tear you with anything they can, even these kind of material. But as with many legal issues, one can't choose wich laws he follows, if we did, what would happen?
ghosttharian 3 weeks ago
@ghosttharian Yes, I understand the crux of the issue. I agree with Dan Bull on the general point. If money can buy you the silence of others, backed by law, then freedom of speech is being surrendered to those with cash.
But privacy is a right too, and I'd rather not see the private lives of people laid bare for ratings.
Trafiguras and such though? That's exactly where the problem is. Using the law to hide their wrongdoing is the hallmark of a badly dysfunctional system.
Vasemmasti 2 weeks ago
@Vasemmasti I know, right? But still. one law "outlaws" another law. Sadly, the person with more cash in his pocket chooses wich law is going to favor him. Makes you think were are we living and how are we living, right?
ghosttharian 2 weeks ago
@ghosttharian Makes me glad I'm not a briton.
Vasemmasti 2 weeks ago
@Vasemmasti Brasil's the way to go! If you can ignore all Samba jokes..
ghosttharian 2 weeks ago
ryan giggs is the CUNTIEST CUNT of all time
MrStonecold69 1 month ago in playlist Favorite videos 6
how are you not famous?? o.0
Gusb135 1 month ago
unlubricated cactus in the anus must hurt very much
mrhenk007 1 month ago
What'd Jeremy clarkson do?
Coolpwnzer 1 month ago
Would you want the whole country to know that you like a a wooden spoon shoved up your arse? No...Ok now shut up
purplenurps 1 month ago
I agree with this rap's lyric. money is stupid super injunction itself
TheMultiNs 1 month ago
mmmmmm cactus anus i love it
freakurGma 2 months ago in playlist More videos from douglby
I used to have a super injunction but then i took an unlubricated cactus to the anus
itballifier 2 months ago 109
@itballifier
You did that after the injuction? What did you do before that caused you to get an injuction in the first place then?!
tantan627 1 month ago
do u have a mixtape i can download ?:D plz say u do ?
mchan12 2 months ago
Can people super-injunct super-injunctions?
Hartifuil 2 months ago 3
@Hartifuil super-injunception
j0shissocoollike 2 months ago
@Hartifuil Dunno, but if they can, can they super-injunct the super-injuncting of their super injunctions?
2TJW 1 month ago
I am not in the slightest bit worried about super-injuctions because they have already been proven to just make it worse for the person getting it.
hazaraku 2 months ago
You wanna do something so bad? Either grow a pair and accept what people will think, or just don't do it if it will be such an inconvenience for you.
WolvesBane95 2 months ago
Wait I'm confussed. I checked up the shameless story, why did they cancel it just 'cause two of the actors had an affair? (Sorry for the bad spelling... If their is any, a bit to dark to see my keyboard atm.)
51kr 2 months ago
@51kr somone?
51kr 1 month ago
Please make more raps like this!
doctorrodders 2 months ago
its the fact that we dont all have it and once its out people cant even mention it
trotskychu 2 months ago
Dan i reckon you should do a dragons den rap, that would be awesome.
MrWhitebuddah 3 months ago
thedemonkage 3 months ago
i
can
haz
a
cookies
plese
thedemonkage 3 months ago
hi
im
a
huge
fan
your
amazing
:)
thedemonkage 3 months ago
How have i only just found your channel.?
Your shit is great!
mvenom101 3 months ago 2
Unlubricated cactus to the anus. I lol'ed irl. You're genius Dan Bull.
Chrisredfield940 3 months ago 16
Comment removed
Mills3y1 4 months ago
Shameless tsk tsk
fdibenedetto69 5 months ago in playlist Dan Bull
@injunctionsuper PAGE 4
ROLE REVERSE PLAYER
whotaughtyou 7 months ago
Shame on the scumbag tabloid gutter press and hourray for Ryan Giggs and the right to privacy and protection from their prying, phone hacking, lies, hypocrisy, character assassination and working up lynch mobs. Boycott the Murdoch press.
mizofan 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Check out the "official crown court papers" from the court case that lead
to me being the 1st ever british poet to be given a "5 year rap & poetry ban" (video on my page)
"Donhonki" "First ever crown court BANNED british rap-poet" (2009-2014) #SuperInjunction
donhonki1 8 months ago
That last line made my ass hurt.
bgatz008 8 months ago
Peadobear has a super-injunction
Doctoratkins 8 months ago
lmfao.."unlubricated catus to the anus".... lmao.... imgen needs that me thinks
StickyIky 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Visit my channel to find hundreds of Super injunctions or go on the suggestions on my video!
Barryissocoolike 9 months ago
If the arrest a twitter user, I am going to protest. I assume many others will too.
Eiraha 9 months ago
@Eiraha Giggs was never after the idiot twitter users spouting his name all over thinking they were clever while wallowing in the gutter press' juicy sex scandal games. He was wanting action only against the organisation and initial person(s) who breached the court order, which was given rightly to preserve the right to privacy from the sort of Murdoch media intrusion we see now with all the shameful hacking. Down with Murdoch, his lies, lynch mobs and character assassinations.
mizofan 7 months ago
I hate to be the loud American stereotype here, I really do, but...
I think this is a great example of why many countries desperately need an American-style first amendment, guaranteeing and enshrining freedom of SPEECH, not merely "freedom of expression".
Say what you will about us yanks, but I think that's something we really got right.
We tolerate the Westboro Baptist Church, for sure, and it sucks, but this kind of thing would NEVER happen here.
AnonymousElektron 9 months ago
wah wah wah me was driven into rear end oh of Badeor silverstone 95 i repeat Luca badeor, me well sell my story to high bidder.
MrTakiinoue 9 months ago
At the end of the day, the only people to blame, are these people who did the dirty on their wives, husbands, boyfriends and girlfriends. Simply put, exercise a bit of self control and you won't have to deal with all this stuff. If I were to do the dirty, then in my job, I'd be out on my arse as quick as you can imagine.
They only have themselves to blame. And blame isn't dealt with by covering it up, it's dealt with by moving on with your life. This footballer has now ruined his reputation.
MMMTheseCookies 9 months ago
I didn't know this was a serious video :P
SuperFunnyman001 9 months ago
The people who disliked this have a super-injunction.
R1cz1000 9 months ago
Great stuff as always, dan
i would just like to say
good job, you're always
going to be on my
subscribed-to list.
AdamPacitti 9 months ago
There’s a rather obvious way this is all going to end, isn’t there?
At the next general/by-election, someone’s going to stand as an independent anti-injunction candidate, simply promising to use Parliamentary privilege to read out the details of all live (super)injunctions, so they can then be openly reported.
That will put an end to all this nonsense for good…
SuperTruth77 9 months ago
its like the dark days of cold war russia. no better no worse.
Bartleyboy1709 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You missed a few ;)
SaladSpork 9 months ago
it is only right and fair that everyone be protected from the media and their vulgar practice of trial by media. If a person has an affair it is for their partners to decide how to deal with it, not a media lynch mob. The media have a strong history of wrecking lives for profit.
cucumberman1234567 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DONT READ THIS CAUSE IT ACTULLY WORKS. YOU WILL BE KISSED ON THE NEAREST POSSIBLE FRIDAY BY THE LOVE OF YOUR LIFE. TOMMOROW WILL BE THE BEST DAY OF YOUR LIFE. HOWEVER IF YOU DO NOT POST THIS COMMENT TO AT LEAST 3 VIDEOS YOU WILL DIE WITHIN 2 DAYS. NOW UV STARTED READING THISï SO DUNT STOP. THIS IS SO SCARY PUT THIS ON ATï LEASTï 5 VIDEOS IN 143 MINUTESïWHEN UR DONE PRESS F6 AND URï LOVERS NAME WILL APPEAR ONTHE SCREEN IN BIG LETTERS THIS IS SO SCARY CAUSE IT ACTUALY WORKs
rdg50x 9 months ago
Serously if you dont want to be found out doingbad things, maybe yous houldn't do bad things in the first place? Contraversial idea I know...
BritGirlJay 9 months ago 26
This has been flagged as spam show
@BritGirlJay those who have nothing to hide have nothing to lose
RazorSRaider 3 months ago
@BritGirlJay You miss the point completely.... the point is people can protect their secrets with money and it becomes a criminal offence to spread information about it. Which is wrong...
kiru888 2 months ago
@kiru888 I really didn't 'miss the point' - I gave an opinion. Different thing entirely.
BritGirlJay 2 months ago
@BritGirlJay A controversial idea for you is paying attention in school
purplenurps 1 month ago 2
@purplenurps I see - you are now apeing a stereotype and resorting to personal insults because you have no viable argument. You lose troll.
BritGirlJay 1 month ago
@BritGirlJay You can't spell and you've got the top comment, that is why i'm insulting you.
purplenurps 1 month ago 4
@BritGirlJay Implying there is an objective good or bad?
lethalninja492 1 month ago
@BritGirlJay Good to know you're here with your big book of "Things That Are Factually Good and Bad."
trippytheo 1 month ago
@BritGirlJay nice to know that sexual fetishes is "bad" while, wait what? who decides what is good and bad?
allblue88 1 month ago
this iis classic
avingalaff 9 months ago
The footballer is now suing twitter users who have disseminated the info along with twitter itself. He is now obviously getting shite advice from lawyers who see it as a money train- if this crap had come out in the papers 6 months ago guess what WE WOULDNT CARE BY NOW
Pentdad 9 months ago
This is a great song. Dan Bull is the king of current affairs music. I just wish that the song was longer
macaroonlee 9 months ago
We live in a hypocritical sex-obsessed society. People, whether famous or not, should have a right not to have their sex lives all over the tabloids. The judges have to balance competing rights- certain acts disclosed in the public interest, fine, but it's not usually in the public interest to disclose someone's affair. The public seem to think they have a right to know every detail of famous people's private lives. The tabloids thrive on selling sex (and set-ups) while then passing judgment.
mizofan 9 months ago
I'll admit that you Brits beat us Americans when it comes to culture, manners, language, soccer, and not fucking up the world. But freedom of speech is one thing that we got right.
galarant 9 months ago
@galarant another brit here. For the most part I agree, though it must be pointed out that absolute freedom of speech as practiced in the US also allows people to publish neo-nazi propaganda and other similarly nasty things. On the whole, I think you yanks lean just a little too far in the right direction.
jeloopa 9 months ago
@jeloopa This may be a cultural thing, but generally the US approach to that problem is to counter nasty speech with more speech. There are always plenty of people willing to speak out against hate groups, and our laws allow them to do so in any way that they choose. The result is that hate groups are publicly humiliated every time they speak up, and people wind up seeing them for the fools they are.
galarant 9 months ago
@jeloopa If people weren't allowed to publish and share their ideas then you stop the progression of mankind as a whole. You may not agree with their view but it's their view and at least you're able to be given free access to information that should help you develop your own view. People will always hate openly or behind closed doors and with the more information you give people you hope that you can show people how irrational hatred can be.
ghostid 9 months ago
Superb as always dan.
flill66 9 months ago
I think the important thing to remember about these isnt that some celebs are hiding who they're sleeping with, but that companies like Trafigura take them out to stop people and MP's from finding out/discussing the dumping of toxic waste in 3rd world countries.
troggbl 9 months ago
The reason Britain is upposed to have FREE PRESS, is so that it forces famous people, to behave with responsility, becauuse they KNOW they might be exposed, at any time.
It has worked well, for a LONG time.
I think there is a problem, if Ryan giggs was secretly and discreetly meeting imogen, in an hotel, or at her house, or soemthing.
If he walks round in public with her, then HE is not being discreet, and has exposed himself.
Personally, i would bang the back out of her, and tell the world
AnnoyingTypoSyndrome 9 months ago
@AnnoyingTypoSyndrome But the press don't force people to behave responsibly- many of the British tabloids pass judgement over someone having sex (although humans have natural sexual instincts beyond monogamy) rather than killing millions. Corrupt and lying politicians, fraud or illegal acts are ripe for disclosure in the public interest but not usually someone's private sex life.
mizofan 9 months ago
@mizofan:
Yes, nuy if they werent allowed to publish anything which famous people did, then they would be runnign round having orgies in the street. The press emans that they alwasy have it in the back of their mind, that their wives or mother might see them.
Also, if you have a minister for health, and he's seeing rent boys in public toilets, you dont really want that covered up, so where do you draw the line ?
I agree they are over the top, though.
AnnoyingTypoSyndrome 9 months ago
Comment removed
BanTVer 9 months ago
Comment removed
BanTVer 9 months ago
the 'right to privacy' argument is bogus. if it (as is claimed) is enshrined in uk/european law, then it should automatically apply to everyone, or not at all - not just if you're rich and famous
otherwise, it's a case of the law will only protect you if you can afford to pay for it.
keef71 9 months ago 20
@keef71 Yes, it should apply to all, regardless of money- that includes rich and poor alike. The poor need protecting but this doesn't mean famous people should automatically be fair game for having all their personal details exposed, often for money and sometimes involving set-ups.
mizofan 9 months ago
Comment removed
skunk2011x 9 months ago
Comment removed
skunk2011x 9 months ago
fucking hell, it won't let me post the twitter account, surely you tube isn't in on it to
samsonharrysavilldj 9 months ago
great song dan
samsonharrysavilldj 9 months ago
here's the twitter account
samsonharrysavilldj 9 months ago
David Schneider was the least surprising one, he looks just like a nazi sex pest
stupidjunk878 9 months ago
At last I know who the tweeter is.
Even googles auto search term has been fiddled with.
express375 9 months ago
"super-injunction-aaah-ooh-uh-huh-oooah-iuhuy-ah-HEE"
without investigative journalism,we wouldnt had watergate
ihnlChiv 9 months ago
u win agn
sonsofscotlanduk 9 months ago
brilliant @ 1.15 same company covering up toxic dumping on the African coast , well said
MrDERIAIR 9 months ago
Great stuff, really like your hip-hop activist angle :)
daaain 9 months ago
good work dan!
187maker 9 months ago
Its not about the freedom of publishing and the press,its about the freedom of speech for the women involved! They could jailed for talking about their over-paid lover!
Ova40 9 months ago
Brilliant.
rockinliam123 9 months ago
I'm not sure the issue is so simple. As long as the scumbag tabloid press continues to confuse "in the public interest" with "what interests the public", anyone famous can have their lives fucked up at any time, and that doesn't seem right. Sure, they can sue for invasion of privacy -- but by then the embarrassing information is out there and their friends and family know all kinds of shit that frankly is nobody's business. Why should you have to live in fear just because you got famous?
somegreybloke 9 months ago 8
@somegreybloke I agree that celebrities should be entitled to their privacy, but companies dumping toxic waste in Africa shouldn't be. There's a fine line, and I think super injunctions are on the wrong side of it.
cashford2 9 months ago
@cashford2 Totally, if actual corruption and illegality are involved. Maybe super injunctions would be okay if they could only be taken out by individuals in regards to non-criminal activities, rather than companies to cover up crime?
somegreybloke 9 months ago 2
@somegreybloke Good point, and I don't think there is an easy answer. I just think the current law isn't working; one example: footballers who are found to be having an affair. Because the media can still say that "a footballer" is having an affair (which they do), there is then wider speculation and gossip which can be inaccurate and aimed at the wrong people. It would be better if there were stronger personal privacy laws that protected everyone, not just those people/corps with enough money
douglby 9 months ago 20
@douglby Or we could ask people "Are you interested in stories about footballers having affairs?", and if they say "Yes" put them into camps.
But in the real world, I agree. Stronger privacy laws, and more press regulation. And camps.
somegreybloke 9 months ago
@somegreybloke wow - an intelligent comment
tsunchoo 9 months ago
@somegreybloke wow! an intelligent comment - on YouTube no less!
tsunchoo 9 months ago
@somegreybloke The difference is that many celebrities use their profile to make more money. If thats squeaky clean profile is bullplop why should they be able to cover things up. The press arnt interested in you or me because we arnt famous, but wouldnt you maybe think twice before sleeping with hookers or having affairs if you were?
Pentdad 9 months ago 2
@Pentdad Unless you're a politician or a preacher who promotes family values or whatever, there's simply no connection between how a famous person makes their money and what they do in their private life. Having an affairs and sleeping with a prostitutes isn't illegal, and if you don't use your position to moralise why should anyone care what you do in your own time?
somegreybloke 9 months ago
@somegreybloke Ok dude if he was from the UK we wouldnt have heard about Tiger Wood's affairs. Which means all those companies who pay him to promote their stuff would still be paying him, and we would all be buying up the lie that Tiger was this lovely husband, a model for all black people accross the world. So hey, under your rules lets all just believe in lies.
Pentdad 9 months ago
@Pentdad See my point about "promoting family values", if that's what he was actually being paid for.
somegreybloke 9 months ago
@somegreybloke great point - concur entirely.
NumpTCOD 9 months ago
@somegreybloke The main point is, that if you have a career in the public eye that has great influence on people or society (Footballer,TV personality, Director of an international bank etc) then you should accept that there will be press interest in what you are doing and not misbehave. On the other hand, there should be no so no more so-and-so down the park with their kids pseudo-news
These people have a responsibility to NOT do anything which can damage their family and should act accordingly
mrsanity 9 months ago
@somegreybloke
If you rely on fame to earn your living like so many celebrities, then you cannot have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
People have a right to know what they're buying.
Cockwallet 9 months ago
@somegreybloke as a proud American, let me kindly tell you to FUCK OFF.
Fuck everything about that viewpoint.
I cannot believe that you're seriously weighing the comfort and privacy of celebrities (or anyone) against the free flow of information -- a fundamental pillar of modern civilization.
Here, this is you:
Oh gee, having the right to a fair trial before conviction is nice and all, but it could be abused by criminals, so maybe we should reconsider it...
AnonymousElektron 9 months ago
@AnonymousElektron If someone were to hack into your PC and publish your porn folders and private emails along with your real name and address, you'd be okay with that? Or does your absolutism over free flow of information run up against any exceptions?
somegreybloke 9 months ago
@somegreybloke as a regular contributor to encyclipedia dramatica, I think I'm somewhat qualified to comment on this.
Yes, yes, I would be ok with it, if it meant that I got to continue to live in a free society.
If it meant that I could also publish dirty secrets of evil corporations and governments, I would be 100% ok with it.
And existing laws against derogatory speech go far enough.
You still can't explicitly and knowingly LIE about someone.
AnonymousElektron 9 months ago
@somegreybloke I proudly defend the right of the westboro baptist church to picket funerals in my city -- and I also defend the rights of the lgbt folks who strip in front of them.
AnonymousElektron 9 months ago
@somegreybloke do you think that, if my corporation made billions by infection thousands of schoolchildren with cancer, that I should have this little secret protected from public scrutiny?
It's embarrassing!!!
How dare those stupid two-bit muck-rakers spread facts about meeeeeeee!!
I'm so glad that the British government is on my side, protecting me!
And I'm thankful for blokes like you who support protecting my evil deeds.
Thanks for your help, bro.
AnonymousElektron 9 months ago
@somegreybloke but yeah, in conclusion, I think people like you are utter scum.
People like you are the reason that the nazi party rose to power in Europe (read a little history)
You're a willing cog in a horrible machine, and you'd be the first one coming up with excuses after the fact, you pathetic worm, you.
You can't see five feet past your own good intentions, while you piss on principles that more worthy people than yourself died for.
AnonymousElektron 9 months ago
@AnonymousElektron Wow.
somegreybloke 9 months ago
ALSO, this isn't simply about celebrities by any means.
Super injunctions have also been used to silence allegations of BP dumping massive amounts of toxic waste off the coast of Africa.
How can you possibly justify that??
Does the public not have a right to know?
In the name of being polite to celebrities, you've crippled your press, good work, guys, your grandkids will never forgive you.
AnonymousElektron 9 months ago
I saw something on the front pages today about Jeremy Clarkson sex pictures. My first thought was "why the fuck would anyone want to see that?!?"
TheDave 9 months ago 2
@TheDave Those ones aren't true.. Jemima Khan has publicly denied the allegations, and the fact that there was no superinjunction concerning her & Clarkson has been verified. The silence on the others might lead us to draw our own conclusions..
bimblinghill 9 months ago
Why not just call it what it is: bribery
shaurz 9 months ago
I'm not sure I entirely agree. I doesn't seem right to me that the press should be able to investigate what you do in the comfort of your own bedroom, regardless of whether or not the allegations are true - it still negatively impacts the people involved. Any newspaper that indulges in that sort of invasion, deserves to be sued.
piprod01 9 months ago 5
@piprod01 Deserves to be sued, yes - but super-injunctions are a different thing, they don't just forbid the disclosure of information, they forbid any acknowledgement of the injunction itself, it's like a black hole...
douglby 9 months ago 33
@douglby
The issue is suing someone for speaking the truth.
If allegations are made that are not truthful there is legal recourse for such.
Why certain individuals should be treated any differently than you or I, when it is the public that keeps those individuals paid.
mrgreebly 9 months ago 2
@douglby are super injunctions recursive? can you mention the super injunction?
graingert 9 months ago
@piprod01 Plus, super injunctions aren't only used by celebrities to cover up affairs. If we allow this kind of thing to continue, one day there'll be a real story which actually matters which the press aren't allowed to report on or acknowledge exists (it's already nearly happened once in the case of Trafigura vs. The Guardian).
cashford2 9 months ago
@jeffrey44 cos thats what this video does.... ! You not seen it yet?
MrScraghead 9 months ago
How on earth do we allow this kind of rubbish censorship.
“Excuse me local paper, you are being sued over something you posted that a super injunction was just passed on.”
“How was I to know? Where would I have read about it.”
“Oh you wouldn’t have read about it anywhere, even mentioning the injunction existence is against the law.”
How can we make this wold a better palce when we have to deal with this kind of BS.
Keep up the awesome work my friend.
TheFluxfox 9 months ago 52
@TheFluxfox It's just some slag that wants to make money off a cheat. Why do we want that sort of thing dominating the news? It's just lame information for the idiots of society.
David182nd 9 months ago
an unlubricated cactus to the anus?...really? ...thts a horrible thought...
SiOTheCaveman 9 months ago 48
@SiOTheCaveman im not sure lubrication will realy help that much
umboo890 9 months ago
@SiOTheCaveman Yeah, a lubricated cactus on the other hand, well that's kind of sexy..
cabbage0dusk 9 months ago
@SiOTheCaveman So you'd consider a LUBRICATED cactus? Well, each to their own, i suppose. Whatever floats your boat.
slapdashrapper 9 months ago
@SiOTheCaveman Some people pay good money for that kind of service..............
mebiggles1 9 months ago
I am about to roll up
aciidphreeek 9 months ago 2
Spread this no matter who you are. Stick it on Facebook, send it to your friends, whatever, just spread it. When it comes to information the thing the Government fear the most is it being spread.
kn100kn100 9 months ago
@kn100kn100
I would argue that this is exactly the kind of information that the government want spread. Keep us idiots occupied with celebrity gossip while they get up to all kinds of dodgy deals with Murdoch that can be freely reported but won't be because Murdoch owns the UK media.
jeffrey44 9 months ago
@jeffrey44 It's all to do with information control.
kn100kn100 9 months ago
@kn100kn100
Why aren't you posting details about who you have had sex with if you think it is so important that we know these things?
jeffrey44 9 months ago
@jeffrey44 I don't think the information itself is important, I couldn't give a shit what MP slept with which mistress, the issue at hand here is the fact you can pay to silence the media. The issue is NOT that celebrities are shagging dogs etc, the issue is that information can be legally held back for a price, and that in my mind is completely wrong.
If you are interested though, I lost my virginity a while ago to a girl called Doris.
kn100kn100 9 months ago
@kn100kn100 You hit the nail on the head. I don't give a toss about the celebs, it's the principle of suppressing information if you have the cash to do so
douglby 9 months ago
@douglby EXACTLY. In my mind no legal injunction should make information illegal.
kn100kn100 9 months ago
Catchy tune and I love the lyrics mate.
Keep em coming. :D
04artwil 9 months ago 2
Brilliant as usual dude... keep on writing.
DarknezzMadnezz 9 months ago
NICE ONE!! The tune of "Roll up! Roll up!"... Made me think of "No Matter Who You Vote For The Government Always Gets In" :D
McPrfctday 9 months ago
awesome :)
AskTheZebra 9 months ago
Brilliant as always, Dan.
XNickdaninjaX 9 months ago
awesome love the song ;D
mattias0114 9 months ago
Genius
TheWarWasp 9 months ago
<3<3<3<3<3<3
zilezon 9 months ago
EPIC!!!!
newgeekonthevlog77 9 months ago
I love these style of videos :D
Gl1tchProductions 9 months ago
@Gl1tchProductions search "typography" for words to songs..
acer0169 9 months ago
@acer0169 Thanks mate! :D
Gl1tchProductions 9 months ago
Saw this in my inbox and I was like YAAAARRRRRRR
hazgown 9 months ago
w00000000000000000000t
PlayingWithDeathEra 9 months ago
AHAHAHA andrew marr had it coming xD
EntishGaming 9 months ago
Excellent as always. Keep up the good work, mate! ;D
darth457 9 months ago
Lovely, another Dan Bull song!
geeekzor 9 months ago