Hugh Grant's Divine Right To Privacy Is A Big Blow For Press Freedom

The new Royal Charter for Press Censorship, cobbled together in the middle night by the low lifes that infest the hallowed halls of Westminster, is proof, if any were needed, of the power wielded by wealthy celebrities and opportunists that wish to do their dirty work outside of public scrutiny.

One of the cornerstones of a free democratic society is a free press, unfettered by government or a privileged class that is obsessed with controlling the message. This privileged class now includes wealthy film stars and so called celebrities who have achieved notoriety and wealth by displaying their brainless antics on television to an equally brainless audience.

It goes without saying that whenever an opportunity arises to muzzle the press the politicians will take full advantage. They would dearly love to carry on with their lying, criminal ways outside the public gaze.

The battle between the British people and the secretive malign interests over press freedom has been going on unabated for years. The latest, and sadly successful attempt, started with the phone hacking scandal and in particular the phone of murdered schoolgirl Millie Dowler.

This illegal intrusion rightly caused outrage among the public and led to the revelation that phone hacking was widespread and not confined to the tabloid press or the paparazzi.

This public outrage was seized upon by unscrupulous politicians and celebrities alike who only want favourable publicity, and only when it suits them.

These control freaks want to limit the public view to the income generating image that has been carefully manufactured by PR agents and their media management companies.

The Hacked Off campaign was set up by hacking victims and celebrities as a pressure group to punish the perpetrators but it was subsequently hijacked and turned into a movement to censor the press. For obvious reasons it chose celebrity actor and notorious press hater, Hugh Grant as its public face.

Hugh Grant appeared to be happy with the press coverage of his acting career and his relationships with wealthy celebrities such as Liz Hurley and Jemima Goldsmith/Khan. This kind of publicity may have its irritating downside but it is tolerated because it's an essential component in publicising their latest wealth generating projects, be that a film or a fashion shoot.

Grant was not so happy with the press coverage of his criminal behavior with prostitute Divine Brown. The police mugshot and the lurid details of his sexual shenanigans must have been a nightmare for his PR agents and their media managers.

Grant's PR agents spent years creating the image of the foppish, well spoken Englishman who had a string of beautiful ladies to whom he refused to commit. This image was shot to pieces when he revealed his true self to be a sleazy low life who can't control his urges and indulges in public sex with a prostitute.

Since these revelations, Hugh Grant has carried out a vendetta and was only too happy to front an organisation set up to censor the free press and exact his revenge.

This issue has nothing to do with Grants sexual proclivities as such, the question regarding press freedom is: does the public have a right know the real Hugh Grant or should they be limited to the false image created by his PR agents?

In the case of another high profile Hacked Off supporter, Formula One bigwig, Max Mosley. Does the public have a right to know that he likes to take part in Nazi themed sado-masochist orgies with prostitutes? The answer should be, who cares! But if he was so worried about his public image being damaged, he should learn how to control his urges or take better precautions to prevent his behavior getting into the public domain.

The exposure by the free press of the criminal behavior of the political class guaranteed that they would jump on the censorship bandwagon. No second invitation was required with this sleazy bunch of lying guttersnipes.

Despite spending millions of pounds of taxpayers money desperately trying to get injunctions against publication, the thieving buggers were exposed by the free press enriching themselves by systematically looting the public purse. They were all at it, from the Prime Minister downwards and regardless of party affiliation.

We read with disgust the ignominious spectacle of socialists, claiming to be on the side of the poor and dispossessed, while simultaneously thieving from them to pay for everything from sink plugs to flat screen tv's to porn films.

The free press exposed politicians who deliberately lied to their constituents about their love of family while simultaneously indulging in extra-marital affairs with secretaries and rent boys alike.

The public has a right to know the truth about politicians and celebrities alike and not be spoon fed a false image that was designed to deceive in order to pursue a lucrative career.

The public's right to know the truth far outweighs Hugh Grants right to deceive for financial gain or a politicians right to lie.

The answer for celebrities is to behave themselves in public and if they can't, get a motel room.

The answer for politicians, which I realise is an impossibility, is to stop their criminal, lying behavior and tell the truth.