Jump to content
DannyUK

EXPLOITING PEOPLE IN THE PUBLIC EYE - CAROLINES LAW

Recommended Posts

Do forgive me those whom don't see the bigger picture here, the greater potential of what's taking place and deception

 

3_Caroline-Flack-charged-with-assault.jpg.562ee3635ba9fac7f2d2e575e2119f73.jpg

I must say, like everyone else was surprised about hearing this news but wasn't so surprised to see the quick reaction and where this is going now...

 

Advancements for control and censorship have being on the cards for awhile, on as many fronts as possible the road is being paved.

 

But here we have a petition that seeks to exploit an event and circumstance, while it is done so, to apparently stop the exploitation of people within the public eye?

 

It's the old trick...

Use discrimination of people in an apparent effort to remove discrimination.

Attack people and smear those whom are apparently attacking and smearing people or group.

Those campaining against fascism using tactics of fascism

etc etc

 

A guilty by association game and the angle of your debate used to judge and smear you, but that judging and smearing is only desirable as one way traffic.

Those doing this don't want to be judge and smeared and so they want that potential CENSORED, stop it within its tracks so they themselves don't risk exposure of their crimes and wrongdoing.

 

Royalty, the establishment desire this exploitation more than anyone else....


As though the pressures of all those within the public eye are all of the same pressures of equal merit.

 

It boils down to this...

Those within the public eye want all the good attention and not the bad.
You can't have one without the other, otherwise you have a state of justified censorship.

 

Like it or not and this is about censoring the unjust deeds of those caught up in the limelight.
Even if they simply be accusations and having their dirty laundry being aired in public.
This is affiliated with a controlled state of censorship, fake news, the new face of Royalty to the new face of the BBC...

Engaging in this sort of protest will cunningly seek to stop the exposure of potentially serious crimes and their Interconnected networks, of all those within the public eye, predators and pedophilia alike, war criminals etc 
Think recent situations involving, Jimmy Savile to Jeffrey Epstein or perhaps the Kevin Spacey's to Cliff Richard.

Lee Harvey Oswalds maybe made scapegoats of at current, but they don't want the potential of people digging deeper and exposing greater connections.

The same with War Crimes and when war is desirable, so is Censorship and the war on the free flow of information.

 

What we have here is a lot of Mind Games 

 

 

9/11 Indictment Deception - War on Iran - International Zionist Obj

https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?p=1062986448

 

Therefore, it's a price you pay and if you don't want to accept it, stop holding the public eye limelight and step aside, as actions here can quite clearly seek to help the wrong people from being exposed investigated investigated by gag orders, legislation, laws and good old censorship.

 

If you have any sense...
Don't sign but be aware.

 

EXPLOITING PEOPLE IN THE PUBLIC EYE

 
Stephanie Davis started this petition to UK Government and it now has 240,897 signatures

Sign now with a click

There should be new & stricter laws around safeguarding celebrities and people in the public eye. These laws should be put in place to prevent the newspapers, magazines, all forms of media and paparazzi from:

Releasing information that there is no evidence for and is therefore false
Printing source quotes from anyone or an unreliable source
Invading privacy and sharing private information that is detrimental to the celebrity, their mental health and those around them
Paparazzi taking and printing images without permission
Releasing an individuals private medical or health related information or their sexual orientation
Releasing articles about leaked explicit photos, videos and revenge porn
Stricter legal boundaries regarding unwanted trespassing nearby the property where the individual resides, or is visiting 
This will ensure that celebrity’s mental health & human rights are being respect appropriately, safely and with a duty of care. It will also help their family & friend’s mental health as they are affected also as unwanted negative attention is then attracted towards them and invades their privacy too. This will better prevent self harm, suicide, substance abuse, and poor mental health. 

Let’s stand together and once and for all make a change.

 

EXPLOITING PEOPLE IN THE PUBLIC EYE

Says someone trying to get into that limelight by exploiting this situation of circumstances.

If you don't see that Duality, the potential of deception here, you can't be sincere about your argument or at best, ignorant.

https://www.change.org/p/exploiting-people-in-the-public-eye?use_react=false

 

CAROLINES LAW

https://www.change.org/p/exploiting-people-in-the-public-eye/u/25759929

Edited by DannyUK
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again if she was a nobody (well who weren't ITV2 level of "fame") charged with assaulting her boyfriend, or even other way round, this shit wouldn't be attempted to be imposed.

The more restrictions the more they get away with it. One rule for them etc.

Plus would David Icke be covered by whatever bullshit law comes in or would it be open season as usual?

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its strange that Philip Schofield encouraged a media frenzy about his sexuality. Contradictory to this law, so the attention is warranted when it suits them and serves their agenda. Also all the invasive voyeuristic reality TV shows this girl's generation are addicted to totally encourage prying into peoples personal lives and thoughts, breakdowns and all, and discussing them endlessly on social media. What is Big Brother and Im a Celebrity and Love Island if not a violation of privacy, the public exposure of intimate moments, with the contestants' permission? At what point do you decide by law how far we're allowed to pry and judge peoples behaviour, which is what these shows are all about? And ofcourse this law would be very handy for covering up serious criminal indiscretions!

 
If people really want to make a difference they should stop buying tabloids and celebrity magazines and watching these sort of programmes - its only supply and demand.
 
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DannyUK said:

I must say, like everyone else was surprised about hearing this news but wasn't so surprised to see the quick reaction and where this is going now...

 

Advancements for control and censorship have being on the cards for awhile, on as many fronts as possible the road is being paved.

 

But here we have a petition that seeks to exploit an event and circumstance, while it is done so, to apparently stop the exploitation of people within the public eye?

 

It's the old trick...

Use discrimination of people in an apparent effort to remove discrimination.

Attack people and smear those whom are apparently attacking and smearing people or group.

Those campaining against fascism using tactics of fascism

etc etc

 

yes hacked off are once again hiding behind faux-morality to seek to shut down freedom of speech

 

if these narcisisstic celebs get their way none of us will be able to speak about what satanic pedos and miscreants many celebs are

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

all the above just says to me how far ahead their plans are planed.....after all this "conspiracy years" there are days when i go "wow ,really"

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Further on this...

How many people have quickly signed this petition?

 

Imagine if I or anyone here, started a petition about the damage to the wellbeing, mental and physical health debt causes individuals?

Almost everyone and anyone should be familiar with this...

 

That we demand an offical investigation into the banking industry about the potential stresses and many suicides caused by those under the fincial pressures and debt?

 

That we demand something be done about the handling of finical situations, to avoid potential suicides like this in the future caused by people under the pressures of being in debt.

That they be removed and not allowed to continue their pursuits and pressures on individuals if it is causing them such pressures.

 

How many people are under this stress and suicides committed because of Universal Credit and those "sanctions" upon individuals, in the same context of sanctions upon so called terrorist states are used to deteriorate an enemy?

 

If anything, Universal Credit may expose this attitude towards so called terrorist states and develop a bit of sympathy and empathy because of it at best...

We demand a law be created in the name and image of the many dead due to such circumstances.

 

It would land upon "death" ears - if you pardon the pun.

 

Those pressures are very real and effect a lot of people whom can relate to this and would much rather desire the reformation of the control of debt which equally is constructed deliberately to cause people stress whom are indebted to the fincial system.

 

Yet, you'd never get that story spreading like wildfire via the news and social media.

Would you?

 

Yet, how many more people could be said to have committed suicide due to financial pressures and debt?

 

Allowing the artificial construct of life destroy life itself?

That's exactly why it is this way so we feed their system of control.

 

This clear disparity within the priorities of the public and the momentum of this movement and law stinks to me...

 

It's an exploitation which was something desirable before the unfortunate issue of Caroline Flacks sucide and now that situation is being used and exploited to justify preconceived political issues and agendas.

So, crimes of the establishment can be more easily controlled and covered up.

They don't give a shit about people like Caroline evidently.

Why many people whom are drawn to the likes of this petition under the false light and media sensationalism being used to give legs to this agenda, will likely very much care about people like this but not aware of the high potential of exploitation of Caroline's Suicide and themselves by supporting this agenda...

 

Edited by DannyUK
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
7566be30-08b4-4c72-adf0-24d20ad4bdba.png


NEW: JOIN OUR SUPPORTER SCHEME

We've started off the year facing two major unprecedented threats: a police decision to roll out facial recognition and Government plans to censor free speech online.

The threats are evolving – so we are too.

Today, we’ve launched a NEW supporter scheme so you can directly join the fight back.

JOIN US

Check it out on our brand new website, where you’ll also find all our campaigns, calls to action and a new interactive map of live facial recognition uses in the UK.

Supporting us is the easiest and most effective way to grow the strength of our work to stop facial recognition, end digital strip searches, protect freedom of expression, and much more.

09273bb9-bca3-4a38-ae4e-ade1c46ba3bf.png

Already in the past few weeks, we’ve:

  • been planning next steps in our legal challenge to the Met Police’s roll out of facial recognition surveillance

  • protested at the first ‘operational’ use of facial recognition in Stratford, London; and 35,000 people signed our petition

  • made the case against facial recognition across the airwaves, including on BBC Politics and Sky

  • met the Information Commissioner to demand protections for victims against digital strip searches; whilst pursuing a FOI campaign to police forces to expose their impact

  • questioned the Digital Minister on the threat to free speech posed by ‘Online Harms Bill’ plans

There are serious threats to our freedoms ahead. We’ll need to fight harder than ever before. The time to join us is now!

JOIN US NOW

To show our thanks, we’ll welcome new supporters with a FREE gift — we've got t-shirts, camera covers, stickers and more.

The fight for the future is now. Please support us today!

 

 

Edited by DannyUK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, DannyUK said:

They don't give a shit about people like Caroline evidently.

 

Caroline is arguably a victim of the metoo movement

 

she was facing a court case about an alleged assault and committed suicide; perhaps the fear of the impact on her working and social life of the high publicity case in this age of social media was too much to bare?

 

What's interesting is that there have been a number of men who have committed suicide as a result of metoo accusations including some people in the public eye and yet none of them have received as much media coverage as this lady

 

In this age of 'equality' why does the corporate media hold this woman's life as more dear than other comparable cases?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, muir said:

 

Caroline is arguably a victim of the metoo movement

 

she was facing a court case about an alleged assault and committed suicide; perhaps the fear of the impact on her working and social life of the high publicity case in this age of social media was too much to bare?

 

What's interesting is that there have been a number of men who have committed suicide as a result of metoo accusations including some people in the public eye and yet none of them have received as much media coverage as this lady

 

In this age of 'equality' why does the corporate media hold this woman's life as more dear than other comparable cases?

 

I have a lot of sympathy for Fathers for Justice, but imo their meme was out of line before the trial. 

24801094-8009475-image-a-4_1581850686090

 

Flack allegedly smashed a lamp on her boyfriend´s head and although the injuries weren´t serious he did need to be checked out in hospital.

 

I personally think she was most likely guilty of domestic abuse, but there is always a case for self defense (men and women).

 

We don´t know what happened behind those closed doors.

 

Edited by Golden Retriever
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Golden Retriever said:

Flack allegedly smashed a lamp on her boyfriend´s head and although the injuries weren´t serious he did need to be checked out in hospital.  I personally think

she was most likely guilty of abuse, but there is always a case for self defense. We don´t know what happened behind those closed doors.

 

its my personal belief that most violence between men and women is committed by women however due to the stronger physique of men when they do lash out they tend to cause more harm

 

if i had to guess i would say that most abuse which i believe can take many forms is actually committed by women but that men are traditionally seen as sacrificial to society and as a result their suffering is less recognised

 

When i look at the modern workplace which is now full of women i don't think that things have become any less corrupt or immoral. If anything i see the problems of the world deepening

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, muir said:

 

its my personal belief that most violence between men and women is committed by women however due to the stronger physique of men when they do lash out they tend to cause more harm

 

if i had to guess i would say that most abuse which i believe can take many forms is actually committed by women

 

When i look at the modern workplace which is now full of women i don't think that things have become any less corrupt or immoral. If anything i see the problems of the world deepening

 

Yeah, but Justice for Fathers were wrong to label her an abuser before a trial.   That could affect the thoughts of some jury members.

 

Edited by Golden Retriever
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Golden Retriever said:

Yeah, but Justice for Fathers were wrong to label her an abuser before a trial.   That could affect some jury members.

 

perhaps it was a form of satirical social commentary on the presumption of guilt that is always tipped towards men by the sisterhood?

 

the concept of male 'privilege' portrays women as the eternal victim and men as the eternal 'oppressor'

 

i don't believe in that narrative

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, muir said:

 

perhaps it was a form of satirical social commentary on the presumption of guilt that is always tipped towards men by the sisterhood?

 

the concept of male 'privilege' portrays women as the eternal victim and men as the eternal 'oppressor'

 

i don't believe in that narrative

 

Well in this case the boyfriend of Flack didn't want to press any charges. So is there more than meets the eye?

Edited by Golden Retriever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actresses have been slapping men in movies by a ratio of 100:1 since the dawn of cinema and women have been emulating this in their private lives ever since as some warped rite of passage and expression of feisty 'hard to get' sexuality.

 

Women are far more sexually aggressive and abusive than men and everybody knows it because they've always been given a free pass to get away with it.

 

I'm tired of all this ridiculous, hypocritical victimhood bullshit modern women go on with.

Edited by size of light
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, size of light said:

Actresses have been slapping men in movies by a ratio of 100:1 since the dawn of cinema and women have been emulating this in their private lives ever since as some warped rite of passage and expression of feisty 'hard to get' sexuality.

 

Women are far more sexually aggressive and abusive than men and everybody knows it because they've always been given a free pass to get away with it.

 

I'm tired of all this ridiculous, hypocritical victimhood bullshit modern women go on with.

 

I don´t agree with hypocritical victimhood, but many more women are killed by their partners than vice versa.

 

So what should be done SOL?  Are these dead women making it all up?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to throw a further dimension into this though which is the neo-marxist third wave feminist idea that a woman should define herself by her career

 

I don't believe most peoples job is a vocation which they feel compelled to do or out of which they derive great personal satisfaction; i think most people simply work because they have to make ends meet and they do what needs to be done to get by

 

So i think what happens now a lot as a result of social engineering is that many women who have told themselves that they are 'liberated' for the first half of their lives because they have pursued their own career and their own sole interests often hit their middle age and find their enthusiasm for the interests of their youth waning and suddenly desire a deeper connection to something but having failed to have children and having lost their fertility they then find themselves looking at the second half of their life ahead of them wondering what fulfillment they are going to find in that

 

Of course this doesn't apply to everyone and some people will be perfectly happy but i don't think its true for many except now they are not allowed to say that or they get demonised for betraying the dogma of marxist feminism

 

My personal belief is that happiness doesn't necessarily come from comfort which the modern world can often provide but in fact from having meaning and purpose and motherhood, fatherhood and family provide both meaning and purpose and also the sense of being part of something greater than oneself. I believe that ideological social engineering is robbing many women of that, but they realise their mistake too late to be able to remedy their situation

 

I believe that there is a hateful agenda at work by people who simply don't want white people to breed and that the agenda is having a detrimental effect on the mental health of many western women who are pursuing happiness in the wrong place and failing to find it

Feminists claiming ‘tradwives’ are radicalized ‘like ISIS brides’ have become the woman-shaming patriarchy they hated

Helen Buyniski

is an American journalist and political commentator at RT. Follow her on Twitter @velocirapture23

14 Feb, 2020 19:15
Women denouncing their sisters who publicly tout the virtues of traditional marriage and motherhood as victims of extremist brainwashing have substituted a creeping paternalism for feminism’s true aims.

Concern about the rise of the so-called ‘tradwife’ movement – young women embracing a return to pre-feminist gender roles in which the wife is expected to take care of her husband and children full-time rather than work outside the home – has exploded in recent months, bringing with it all the pearl-clutching think pieces and overwrought, undereducated opinionating that implies. 

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/480879-tradwives-brainwashed-isis-feminism-patriarchy/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Golden Retriever said:

Well in this case the boyfriend of Flack didn't want to press any charges. So is there more than meets the eye?

 

men won't generally seek to publically destroy their partner. Its uncommon for men to air dirty laundry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Golden Retriever said:

 

I don´t agree with hypocritical victimhood, but many more women are killed by their partners than vice versa.

 

So what should be done SOL?  Are these dead women making it all up?

 

No idea about murder rates, I'm referring to casual, socially-acceptable sexual harassment and physical abuse by women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Golden Retriever said:

I don´t agree with hypocritical victimhood, but many more women are killed by their partners than vice versa.

 

So what should be done SOL?  Are these dead women making it all up?

 

no abuse and violence against women most definately DOES exist

 

what i'm speaking about is the concept of automatic female victimhood which then removes the need for any self reflection on the part of women

 

so why would this be encouraged by the same engineers of perception who also push so many other forms of social engineering on society?

 

they would do it because they know that if they can fuel the worst excesses of toxic femininity that relationships across the west will fail and those ideologues see the destruction of the nuclear family and of 'heteronormative' relations between men and woman as one of the primary goals of their neo-marxist agenda to undermine what they call 'patriarchal' society but by which they really mean a society where the individual has rights and freedoms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, size of light said:

Women are far more sexually aggressive and abusive than men and everybody knows it because they've always been given a free pass to get away with it.

 

i'd say that men are often more cautious in their speech with each other in order to avoid a confrontation that can lead to some sort of breakdown situation whereas women feel more emboldened to misbehave because their female privilege protects them

 

if there is no recognition of this dynamic within the legal system then there won't be the necessary protections in place to protect men from the excesses of toxic femininity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, size of light said:

 

No idea about murder rates, I'm referring to casual, socially-acceptable sexual harassment and physical abuse by women.

 

Perhaps you should look into this.

 

Men are murdering their partners in much greater numbers than vice versa. That´s a very important fact.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, muir said:

 

i'd say that men are often more cautious in their speech with each other in order to avoid a confrontation that can lead to some sort of breakdown situation whereas women feel more emboldened to misbehave because their female privilege protects them

 

if there is no recognition of this dynamic within the legal system then there won't be the necessary protections in place to protect men from the excesses of toxic femininity

 

I'm an ugly sonofabitch but even I can recall numerous times at work where female colleagues have inexplicably taken a shine to me and made inappropriate physical contact to signal their interest and intent.

 

In the next breath they're bullshitting on to one another about male sexual harassment in the workplace without a trace of irony or self-awareness about their own double-standards.

 

Even had a woman come in once and give us a training seminar on sexual harassment in the workplace and inappropriate language and innuendo, and - I kid you not - she then immediately made a comment about the good-looking guy sitting next to me and how the length of a man's tie 'says a lot about him'. All the chicks in the room burst into a cacophony of laughter and sexual innuendo AS IF WE HADN'T JUST BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE INAPPROPRIATENESS OF THIS SORT OF THING.

 

It was extraordinary.

 

OK. Finished venting.

Edited by size of light
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, muir said:

men won't generally seek to publically destroy their partner. Its uncommon for men to air dirty laundry

 

so this is an important dynamic to understand and it is the reason that defamation law exists...

 

your public image affects how people then behave towards you. This is why the media character assassinate people because they are seeking to destroy a person in the eyes of others so that that person then becomes an outcast from society which for social animals like humans can lead to the breakdown of a persons mental health

 

So one way to destroy someone is to physically harm them such as shooting them but an equally effective way of rendering them voiceless to society is to destroy their character which is to seek to destroy them in the eyes of others. if this is done effectively the person may even be driven to suicide

 

In fact its said that the words of the celtic bards were so powerful that they could kill a person with their words but really what they are meaning is that in an honour based society the destruction of a persons honour, which is to say the respect in which they are regarded by their peers is enough to see that person isolated to such an extent that they cannot perceive a future for themselves

 

The japanese were even known to commit suicide when their honour was destroyed

 

This is why gossip can be so harmful and gossip as a rule i would say is mostly indulged in by women who are seeking to undermine the image of a person in the eyes of others. the metoo movement is this process on steroids

 

Now sometimes the metoo movement might be correct. Sometimes a person who is an evil monster may be exposed but sometimes a one sided view of a situation may be presented which could create an unjust perception of the people involved

 

The danger of metoo is that there is an automatic assumption of victimhood when the movement could be used by people of very malevolent intent for their own malicious purposes which was why the concept of innocent until proven guilty was created to avoid public lynchings where the facts of the case hadn't been ascertained

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Golden Retriever said:

Men are murdering their partners in much greater numbers than vice versa. That´s a very important fact.

 

men are physically stronger and when they carry out violence it is likely to cause more harm

 

however this does not have any bearing on the issue of automatic assumption of victimhood

 

yes some women will be outright victims in some cases but in some cases they won't be and if there is always an automatic assumption of victimhood due to the politically correct concept of 'male privilege' then there will be cases of injustice in those situations where the woman was in fact the aggressor or the one with the malevolent intent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×