Yes, I know I post far too much in Issues. However whatever you try you will fail to shut me up!

Watching the evening news today it seems that Kate Moss is being fired as a model for H&M. The reason? She allegedly takes drugs in her free time.

This will undoubtably cause problems with her career. However why should ones activities in ones private life have such repurcussion in their public life? If she does take drugs it is something she does a recreational tool and affects no one else. Why should the public invade a private individuals 'sacred space' if it has no baring on them?

In professions dealing with public service I can understand. It would be unwise for a doctor to continue their career if they happen to be a raving alcoholic. Likewise it would be unwise to allow an elected official to maintain their post if they are shown to be a compulsive liar in their private life.

I guess what I am getting at is at what point does a persons public existance orreride their private one?

This is not just happenning with high profile figures. Bosses are considering compulsary blood tests of employees to check things like alcohol consumption and other drug use. Note these are not people working in high-risk environments, these are OFFICE WORKERS. My dad was told he would have to undergo blood and DNA testing to be allowed into certain facilities. They would be looking for how often he drunk and any illnesses he may have. Note: He was just an engineer. An incredibly qualified one, but still just an ingineer. He successfully fought this through his Union but it is rather worrying.

Most people are able to make a distinction between their private and public lives and they do not intrude. I think it is similar to how people are able to distinguish between reality and fantasy. People seperate the two and are able to function well in society. So what gives society the right to break down these barriers and drag your private life out into the public?

I guess I'm just a social liberal. Do whatever you like as long as it does not harm others. Why is there this need to invade someones private life in order to be hurt by it?

Not sure it was society stopping Kate Moss being a representative for H&M. It was H&M's head of advertising. Simply put, H&M can do whatever the hell they like.
If they want to drop someone for taking drugs they can do that, if they want to drop someone for having a annoying ring tone. They can do that too.
At the end of the day, it all comes down to the tolerence of the person who works above you. I've worked in a job before where my boss invited me around to her place where she grew her own weed and made some kinda weed based alcohol (scary stuff). I've also worked in jobs where they wanted themselves and everyone associated with them to be squeaky clean.

Sometimes it's not gonna be society as a whole dictating things. As far as I'm aware, most people in the UK are getting tired of police time being used up slapping teens wrists for smoking a spliff or two, while else where, they are under manned for murder investigations. But there are those people out there that are admitedly prudish in specific areas. If they're in a position of power or influence... then what they say goes basically.

H&M is pandering to a society that generally brands drug taking as BAAAAAAAAD. Remember those Preperation for Adulthood lessons in school? These companies disown those who take drugs in order to save public face. It would be a simply TERRIBLE thing if people were turned off and took their business elsewhere. So yes, society has everything to do with this situation.

Yes, bosses can fire people because they happenned to get up on the wrong side of bed that morning. But to what extent has society a right to intrude like this. To my knowledge H&M actually decided to give Kate Moss a second chance. They only decided to fire her once the press caught the scent of blood.

I have to agree with you on this one, Calantyr. For the majority of jobs...I don't think it matters what they do in their spare time, provided it's just that - on their own time. I really dislike that sort of stuff personally...but it's their private life and so it's their business and not mine, I guess.

On a related note, I recently read that some companies have started to perform credit checks on applicants, to determine if they're financially responsible. This isn't for something like driving an armored car to deliver cash to banks, either. It's at retail jobs in places like Bath and Body Works (though how anyone can work there to begin with is beyond me...I can't even stand walking by the place, the smell is so strong). I guess it's supposed to demonstrate that someone is responsible, but how is some credit card debt in their past any business of the employers?

I don't think H&M dropped her because drugs are bad. They dropped her because drugs are illegal. There's a distinct line which gets blurred as most things illegal are bad anyway, besides, it's not like recreational drugs are good, cocaine and heroine or ecstasy all have the potential to kill, people know this and still do it. But that's besides the point, any model H&M uses is going to me something of the public face of the company, even if there are only rumours about activities of any model it could reflect badly on the company which could adversly affect their profits by putting people off shopping there.

Did H&M find out she does drugs and decide to sack her, or was it the press invading her personal life and making this public, causing H&M to sack her to save their image?

I think it might be the press and their habit of invading the public lives of those who are in the public eye and scandalising anything they can find is largely to blame. Had they not publicised this I don't think there would be a huge problem for H&M.

(Though I'm not saying that drugs aren't bad or anything, just that it's her personal life and she has a right not to have her dirty laundry publicly aired)

it's still gonna be the company making the desicions though...
If a company wants to just stand up and say "you know what? we don't care!"
Then good on them.. but most won't.. "It might affect sales" they say.. and profit is the bottom line.

Is that good for society? No it's not. Does H&M care that much about society as a whole? Only if it will affect their profits.

Simple as. I don't think the major implications of society were what were going through the H&M advertising guys head, I think it was more worrying about the mothers of those teenage girls seeing kate moss' face in the papers, followed by seeing her face in the store windows going. "Hmm.. I don't think she'll help us much more"

Further to my previous post has anybody noticed how the press is always ranting about how the personal lives of celebrities are a bad example to their fans?

Is it me or is it the press that decided to snoop in on their personal lives and make their bad habits visible to us all in the first place. Hypocrites. If that didn't happen we'd only be presented with what they/their PR team want to present us with and there would be less of a problem (dressing stupidly slutty *cough*christina*cough*aguilera*cough*i*cough*hate*her*cough*stds*cough*at*cough*15*cough*feet*cough
*, for instance).

Maybe I'm missing something. >_>

*hands moop a throat sweet*

As I wrote in my General Studies exam, people like Kate Moss work extremely hard to be in the public eye. If you've wanted and worked to be there, you should understand the downsides of the job, and you can expect your privacy to be invaded to a certain degree. Im right with the people who say the press hound celebrities to a ridiculous extent, but I do think that, having worked your butt off to make sure every teenager in the country, maybe in the western world knows and respects your name, then yes, it is reasonable to expect you to set a certain example. Like not taking drugs.

Although... if the paparazzi didn't hound them so much, I wonder if they would be so stressed out that they felt they needed the drugs/booze/whatever?

While I agree with you on principal, it's not like this doesn't happen all the time, if you become a celebrity your private life isn't all that private anymore, it's something people have to accept when they get high profile jobs.

Ahhh, but I only used her as an example of this intrusion. Corporate well-being isn't the entireity of the issue. However the fact that society sees this intrusion into private life as an acceptable means to and end IS a big part of the issue.

Cand Yes, I heard about that too. I think that's about as defensable as asking an employee what their sexual orientation is. It does not have a place in the workplace.

Sir Psycho of the Sexy Yes it is illegal, and that may be an excuse in this case. How about others? Blunkett used his postion to give favours to his associates. That is illegal. Yes he managed to regain a post eventually.

Not only that, many models ingage in bulemia(sp?). They force themselves to throw up after meals. That is dangerous and can lead to death, or at least severe illness. Does this stop various companies using them as a public face? No. In this case it is seen as acceptable.

Moopage Indeed. It seems that H&M gave her a second chance. As soon as the tabloids got wind of it H&M decided to drop her. They also published details on her alledged "Three in a bed lesbian romps" which supposedly contributed to her contract being revoked.

The "three in a bed lesbian romps?" Even if it's true, where the hell do they get off publicizing it? When you publish things like that about most ordinary people and you don't have any proof then it's considered a crime and called libel. Causing someone to lose their job based on rumors is poor journalism and unethical. I hope that she sues the tabloids that published the sexual rumors without proof and wins. Objectively I can see why being a possible lesbian would help get her fired. Public opinion of homosexuality is controversial and bad right now, and the company needs mass appeal. However, it annoys me that a person's private sexual choices can damage or destroy their career.
I understand tabloids generating quick stories about who's dating who. When celebrities walk around in public together, that's a chance they take. However, sexual personal life does not need to be splashed all over the papers.
Unless you are in a sensitive or public service job, there should be no reason for drug tests unless drug use starts hurting your job performance. If you come in constantly late and hungover and do a bad job, that is a justifiable reason for your boss to investigate and fire you. If you drink a bit on the weekends but do a good job anyway and don't bring the drinks to work, it's none of anyone's business at all. The line between public and private life ought to be wide and hard for others to cross without your consent.

It's not like it's a suprise anyway. Everybody know's she does drugs, only this time she has a child and they have a video *shock*.

While I agree people in the public eye should know they're going to have their privacy invaded, the media does take it to rediculous levels. I'm sick of people pretending Kate Moss and her junkie boyfriend are news.

Because of the media, however, everyone else seems to be losing respect for people's private lives. It may be 'news' if Kate Moss is a recreational drug taking, bisexual mother, but it's none of a companies business if their employee decides to be, the only thing that needs to matter is if they can do their job.

Also, the media seems to think it has become the countries judge and jury. Anything they manage to find out someone semi-famous does in bed that isn't the missionary position becomes 'perverted activity.' As long as there are consenting adults involved, it's none of the medias business what goes on in the bedroom.

Kate Moss is hired to be a pretty person, not a role model, and so her private life should not affect her work, however, illegal drugs and a potential court case can very well affect her work, especially as in this case, she is percieved to be a role model even if she is not one. H&M were well within their rights to fire her for the drug taking, but her alledged 'sex-romps' alone should not be enough.

Where I work I could be fired if, off hours and off the premesis, I were to drink, smoke, or engage in any other suspect activities (note: I am a minor). And people often are. The reason given? You represent your employer. If, say, counsellors were arrested for naughtiness, then it could have serious consequences for my camp. Sometimes private life is justifiably monitered by one's employer, because your behaviour effects their success, too. No matter if you job is with heavy machinery or paperwork, if you come to work sloshed your productivity will go down, and you're more likely to be unhelpful or offensive to customers. Your personal habits thus become their business.

This doesn't mean they can't be discreet about it. I don't agree with making public examples of people, and I think the degree to which our society follows stories about celebrities is ridiculous. But by definition a celebrity is someone who is in the public spotlight. If they weren't, they would be like you or I. You can't have it both ways. I want my privacy, so I don't adversity the bad OR the good in my life. Simple as.

I think it shows that the tabloids are desperate actually. I have a male best friend who the gossips insist I'm dating. They continue to persistantly revert to this rumour when they run out of more interesting things to talk about. And frankly, who cares?


/Semi-spam

On this chick: She used a drug which every second person in the industry uses and some sick little prick took a break from touching themselves to photograph it and then sell the images, The little worm should have his nuts ripped off before being sued, she shouldn't apologise and all the conservatives out there should just accept that this goes on every day they just don't see it therefore they shouldn't kick up a stink if they're even halfway rational.
Generally I feel famous people have a right to their private lives while accepting that if they want fame it'll cost them something. If say they want to go out for a family dinner they should pose outside with the familly for X time then be left to eat that is a healty balance.
As Jonny depp is famous then people should take pictures of him and only him, He shouldn't be sued for threatening the bastage who followed his kids to school.

ok, I'm now confused.... so people are annoyed because people in the public eye's non public image is being used to determine their public image.. if that's what this thread is about then.. urm.. this is nothing new.

Since when has it been a case that people have been able to get away with having two seperate images? Rarely even kings of the past had to try damn hard to get away with being able to keep their dirty secrets a secret. Their enemies always tryed to drag things out into the open to bring them down. This isn't a new thing, it's just we have way more celebrities to bring down now than we ever did before. You can't look anywhere without seeing a potential target.

Media's a terrible thing.. blah blah.. yeah it can be. But so are the people that love seeing people taken down a peg, and thirst for 'scandle'. Those people have been around forever.

She represented the company to the people, the company felt that she was a bad representation, so they got rid of her. I think that is reasonable. Anybody who deals with the public has to represent their company - even I, working in a deli, represent Ahold Industries. I, however, only represent them while I'm there. If your job is to be the voice or face of the company, via public relations, or modelling, or whatever, then you represent the company all the time, and as such, I do think that they are right to discharge you if you do a bad job of that.

I understand the drugs having a bad effect on the company's image. I don't like it, but it makes sense. The bit that really pisses me off is using alleged sexual relations that they didn't prove and are none of anyone's business but her own and her lover's being used to finish the job. Sexual relations are private until you force them on someone under the legal age or someone unwilling. The press shouldn't be spreading it around without her permission. It is an extreme violation of her privacy. Although celebrities do lose some privacy when they become famous, some things really should be allowed to remain out of the public eye.

They may have to get used to it but that doesn't make it right. The point is that it's wrong to air peoples private lives in the media and it should be met with diapproval. You don't just look at something that is wrong and go "oh well it's common practise we'll just have to accept it". Quite frankly if you are famous and you feel your private life is being invaded too much then kick up a fuss, maybe if enough people actually do it (by fuss I mean sue the tabloids or similar) eventually the media might lay off a bit.

I'm not sure I entirely get the outrage over this. If anything, I'm disgusted with the media in general for glamourizing horrible choices again and again. (Is she anorexic!! Oh no! *show pictures of unhealthily thin person in glamourous clothes and situations to better provide thinspiration for anorexics*, ect) And well, even if people pay for it, I still consider snooping to be pathetic. The paparazzi ought to have more of a soul than that. But they don't, people buy it and there we are.

As for Kate Moss, she wasn't hired as a nine to five worker. She was hired to publically represent a company and to showcase their items. Hired for her looks and -image-. Her private life reflects her image. Just as the company made a decision to hire her because of that image, I think its reasonable that they don't have to support her behaving in ways that don't really reflect that greatly on them or impress customers. As much as I despise the paparazzi, Kate Moss knew that was a risk when she made those choices. She also was hired having some idea that they didn't expect scandal. She went ahead and made her choices regardless. Its her right, but they have the right to seperate themselves as well.

There is also a large different between a fling with girls while dating someone and doing crack and being a lesbian, which I think needs to be pointed out. My response to a drug induced social life is not the same as to two adults not lost in addiction choosing relationships that don't involve cheating and making choices that will harm their young child.

The media exploits people for a living. If Johnny Depp threatens someone and it makes more money, then that's the way it's going to go - papparazzi have intentionally annoyed and harassed celebrities simply to get a reaction to put on the front page. It's sad, it's disgusting, it's rather vampiric, but it's what goes on in society.

As for drugs? If you get caught snorting cocaine, sucks for you. Yes, it goes on every day, but does that make it alright? No. Murder goes on every day and people aren't just shrugging it off saying 'I don't see it, therefore, we should let it go.' Sorry, that's not how society works. You can't just sweep illegal things under the rug because they're common occurances.

A healthy balance would be nice. But it'll never happen. I feel sorry for stars who are harassed outside with, say, their newborn. Kate Moss? Nope. She was doing something illegal, she did get caught, and as someone whose private and public life are under a microscope twenty four hours a day, you'd think the woman would be a little more discreet about the afforementioned private life.

And yes, it did ruin her sponsor's image. They had every right to fire her, because that's what happens to everyone else in the world. You reflect poorly on your occupation? They drop you. Likesaid, if she wanted to keep it private, especially when *it* was illegal, she could have used a little more effort.

Just as a point of interest.. it appears H&M is a supporter of drug-prevention organization as well.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/sto...1577841,00.html

I know that taking drugs is illegal and represents her company badly, and that is a legitimate reason to fire her.

Last time I checked, her "lesbian romps" were still only alleged. If there's any proof, I'd be glad to see it, as I'm curious about where the tabloids got the information. I see where doing crack and cheating is problem, and that could harm her child, so I see where you're coming from. The "being a lesbian" part is what has me a tad thrown off. If the relationship did not involve crack, cheating, and affecting her child, what would be the problem with the lesbianism as long as she kept it out of the puclic eye? Her company shouldn't have any problem if the world doesn't know. The sentence where you say that is long and a tad confusing, so let me know if I'm misinterpreting.

I wouldn't know. I was just mentioning it as it had been brought up as one of the things she'd been accused of doing.



I knew I should have edited that post. What I was trying to say was that an adult woman in a lesbian relationship, whether one approves or not, is -not- remotely the same thing as a probable drug addict cheating on her lover at a party with two girls. Especially if liquor and possibly drugs were involved. People were talking about it like she was fired for being a lesbian, when that wasn't remotely the allegation. An encounter at a party, especially with the liquor bit is not the same thing as being gay, though it certainly brings up the possibility of her being bi.

That makes a good bit mores sense now. Thanks for clearing it up. I thought that I might be misunderstanding you, but that was one long sentence.

*blush* My own fault. I should have edited at the time.

awww, Believe is so cute when she blushes

[/spam]

Along similar lines, what did people think of Clinton's scandal? Not just the infidelity, but the perjury? Do you think that people were right to be outraged?

When you're in court, you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Our system of law is based upon using the truth and established rules to punish people. When the President, the representative of the government that once wrote those laws, tells a lie in the Supreme Court of land, people are right to get pissed. If he wouldn't tell the truth about something important under oath, how were we supposed to trust him to tell the truth and handle things honestly the rest of the time? It seems that perjury rather undermines every action you take and word you say after that. Shame be upon Bill Clinton's head for lying and cheating, and an extra spoonful of shame for writing an autobiography. The big stupid thing is only useful for a doorstop.
The infidelity bothered me quite a bit too, but the perjury is my main cause for outrage. If someone else wants to talk about the cheating, feel free. I need to get more caffeine now.