Is Joss Stone Safe In Her Own Home?

Photo:David Venni

Singer Joss Stone joked about the moment she was told by the police that Kevin Liverpool and Junior Bradshaw had allegedly planned to behead her. She spoke yesterday about it saying that apart from those extreme threats, it had been a ‘really nice day’.

The peculiar threats supposedly made by the two men from Manchester went as far as decapitating her as well as dumping her body in a river. She admitted that her home security could have been tighter as she often left it open for family, friends and her ex boyfriend, Danny Radford. She explained that she had lived in “Devon for a long time and nobody shuts their door”. She also said that she “had an alarm” but “did not really turn it on very much”. The soulful singer who says she “is a free spirit” may have been a little too liberated and failed to realise that she is in the public eye therefore people would be after her, whether it be for a good reason or bad. She has previously made it apparent that she likes to go on road trips for a couple of days so she may not be used to staying in one place which is why she could have left her house so freely.

Celebrities are known to travel all over the world, especially entertainers who go on tours and promote their brand. They are also known to live ‘out of their suitcases’ so once situated, it could be hard to adapt to ‘normal living’. Charles Darwin’s adaption theory explores this as according to him, adaptations to different environments could be adjusted over time, so maybe Joss Stone had not adapted to her standard home living due to “going on tours” and travelling in her VW camper van the Telegraph had revealed.

The terrible risk of decapitation may not have been helped due to her lack of security but that does not take away from the fact that Kevin and Junior were apparent psychos who planned to commit such a crime handing no blame whatsoever to Joss Stone. Despite whether your doors and windows are locked, homes should provide security and should be a haven for tranquillity which suggests what Joss was looking for as she chose to live in the country. And by her calm response to the information the police had given her about the two suspected men, is it safe to say that she was somewhat at fault for jeopardising her privacy?

Invasion of the Peeping Paparrazi

+Little Mix have been targeted by paparrazi who have tried to snap pictures under their skirts. These vile actions are not only disturbing but a complete invasion of their privacy. Celebrity or no celebrity, its almost certain that most people would agree that it is a complete violation and goes against public morality.

Jesy Nelson, 21, a member of the band told +Metro that paps would often shout 'offensive' comments at her such as "big boobs" and "big bum". Although this is of standard behaviour, taking pictures such as these should not be acceptable. Paparrazi are known to want to take the most shocking pictures to sell to magazines and newspapers which make the most money. However, Jesy made it known that if she was a "normal person they'd be bloody arrested so why should a pap be like that?" Indeed if she wasnt a celebrity, there would be a good chance that it would be deemed as a criminal offence so why is it acceptable for a someone famous to tolerate it?. She then went on to call them "naughty and cheeky" suggesting that she knows that it is what they do judging by the light-weighted insult.

Perrie Edwards, 19, another member of the band says that "at my age, when you're by yourself and a man comes up to you, that's scary stuff". These young girls seem fearful of their lives as would anyone if this was happening to them with band member, Jade Thirwall, 20, saying "fame has forced them to grow up quickly".

The group recently said goodbye to their previous teen rock style and transformed into sex kittens which they revealed more recently at the 2013 Brit Awards with Jesy rocking a bodycon dress with leather detail and studded black heels. Are the scandalous pictures a result of their new look and can they infact blame the paps? On the other hand, how long are they supposed to hold on to that cutesy image?

Celebrities exposing other celebrities?

Now we’ve heard of celebrities being exposed by jealous fans, vicious newspapers and heartless paparazzi, but by other celebrities themselves is something else. Yes, we know that it happens but why? Is it a revenge tactic or another way to stay famous? All intentions are different and this week’s exposé are ex lovebirds Taylor Swift and Harry Styles.

Their quick relationship was no secret to the public as they were seen frolicking hand in hand on numerous occasions both in London and in America. They are both notorious for serial dating signifying privacy towards their love life was never a big issue. When they broke up, one seemed to be more vocal than the other about it as during this year’s Grammy awards, she mocked Harry in her number one hit We Are Never Getting Back Together. This caused a ruckus of course because anything to do with celebrity gossip is major entertainment.

Taylor's Grammy Performance - Youtube

Following this, Harry has requested that scenes of him and Taylor are to be removed from his band’s upcoming 3D concert movie. Reasons’ being is because Taylor is said to be going around talking about their relationship which he deems as “childish” he reportedly said. It is unknown exactly why they broke up but it is evident that Taylor is more verbal as Harry has seemed more low key saying “it is what it is” to ABC news.

The views of the public vary from agreeing that Taylor is in fact being childish to simply not caring. On OMG! Yahoo, the public seemed to be very vocal about Taylors actions with some saying “Taylor has no class at all. Soooo immature. Believe me Harry, you are better off without all Miss Drama crashing all your parties. She's a stalker” and “Who cares? This broad is so immature and dizzy she'll NEVER keep a man. They don't want to ever get back with you, you arrogant B. Men don't want a pretty girl. They want a mature woman - something you're not, great looks or not.” Then on the opposite end, comments say “Somehow I doubt Taylor cares that much.....how long were they dating, a few weeks?” and “The same rehashed insults literally get reused on every Taylor Swift article honestly some of you need to grow up. That was a great performance.”

Taylor seems to be getting more flack even though Harry’s past relationships seem to be disastrous also with his title being a ‘womanizer’. So why has he fallen victim? Is it because he is taking a back seat on publicising their relationship, or is it a case of men always seeming to get away with things. The topic of men vs. women in relationships is very controversial with the idea that it’s ok for men to live the bachelor lifestyle with countless women but if women were to do the same, it’s seen as indecent. This pushes forward Freud’s psychoanalysis of women saying that women are inferior to men along with other ‘misogynistic’ views. He had many opposing viewpoints, one of which being from Sophie Freud who says that "His ideas grew out of society. He mirrored in his theories the belief that women were secondary and were not the norm and didn't quite measure up to the norm," but is this really true? Women being inferior to men still stand in other cultures so perhaps if Taylor wasn’t so notorious for being a serial dater and writing about it in her songs, maybe she would have been seen as the victim but who’s to know?

Daniel Craig loses his cool

Daniel Craig and his wife Rachel Weisz almost had a somewhat violent encounter with a fan recently, reported by the Daily Star. The super crazed fan insisted on taking a picture of the married couple whilst grocery shopping. This you would think, would be of the norm for the famous actor and actress, however Daniel was not too pleased responding with "Is watching me food shopping with my wife really all that interesting to you?". He apparently then snatched the phone the fan proceeded to use as a camera to snap the picture of them with and became very angry. Rachel allegedly calmed the situation and Craig handed the phone to the owner.

Daniels actions may seem a little extreme to some.  Is it a case of simply wanting privacy from his already chaotic lifestyle or is fame getting to his head and dare I add becoming a little Div-o? Craig could have been giving that fan a taste of his own medicine by snatching their private property as a tit for tat kind of move but did he really have to go as far as that? Celebrities are idolised and seen as immortal figures so is the fan to be blamed?

Craig is known to be a very private person and it is said that his own wedding only consisted of four people. Did the 007 star choose the right career path as it seems that there is no escaping crazed fans and ruthless paparazzi. It is also apparent that he is not fond of reality stars such as the Kardashians who air their lives to the public on their popular TV show Keeping up with the Kardashians. He says in the January issue of British GQ "I think there's a lot to be said for keeping your own counsel," he told the mag. "It's not about being afraid to be public with your emotions or about who you are and what you stand for. But if you sell it off it's gone. You can't buy it back—you can't buy your privacy back.” Suggesting they have to keep some things private but as a celebrity some things are inevitable to be publicised. It’s all about moderation perhaps. Possibly some celebrities are well-deserving of privacy invasion if that’s what they do for a living such as reality stars but celebrities famous for their ‘craft’ such as Daniel Craig are still owed the solitude. To regular people, being famous is one large meaning, that you are known by many all over the media but perhaps in the ‘celebrity world’, fame falls under many categories with reality stars being at the bottom of the hierarchy. Are they more deserving of privacy invasion or should all famous people suffer from it?

Are Kate Middleton's Leaked Pregnancy Pictures Acceptable?

Celebrity privacy has always been a controversial topic in itself. Some say that if you choose to become a celebrity then you are choosing to share all aspects of your life to the world. On the other hand, some say that everyone is entitled to privacy despite being a celebrity. The ‘real world’ and the ‘celebrity world’ seem to have different views when it comes to this topic and even though we are all humans, the right to invade someone’s privacy seems to be less concerning when it comes to famous people.

The private lives of celebrities are spread all over the media whether consent is given or not. It is part of the entertainment, especially when that certain celebrity has done something negative and did not want the public to know about it. To regular people, not only is it entertaining but arguably it makes celebrities more relatable. It separates them from being the picture perfect individual they are made out to be to a human who makes mistakes. The invasion is also enjoyed when that particular celebrity is not necessarily liked therefore when they are exposed; it is favoured by a lot of the public.

Deciding whether it is right or wrong is down to the individual and their views on privacy. Most recent pictures of Kate Middleton’s baby bump being exposed whilst on holiday with Prince William surfaced. She was wearing a bikini, exposing her stomach. They were vacationing on the island of Mustique in the Caribbean where pictures were snapped of the royal couple. It was on a private island meaning that the couple did not want their pictures to be taken. The violation of their privacy sparked many views on whether it was right to publish in the Italian magazine, Chi.

This is the second time pictures of Kate have been published unknowingly which disappointed the couple last year as topless pictures of her were shown. Some may argue that if you are putting yourself out there and you are of a high status, then of course things like this would happen. The infuriated couple couldn’t be too surprised surely even if it was on a private island especially on the second occasion. St. James Palace released a statement Tuesday, saying they were “disappointed” over the pictures, which they called “a clear breach of the couple’s right to privacy.” This story can be linked to Princess Diana’s leaked pictures on a remote island of her also in a bikini in February 1982. Although it could just be a mere coincidence, there are a few similarities such as them both being married into royalty, both in bikinis whilst pregnant on private islands and both happening in February. Princess Diana’s pictures caused such a stir in the media as the Queen described it as "the blackest day in the history of British journalism." Therefore the magazine who leaked pictures of Kate must have known the damage it would cause even though they tried to defend it as harmless. Chi editor Alfonso Signorini insisted that "the photographs...do not harm the image of the protagonists and the reaction of the media seems to me wholly over the top."He added, "The photographs can hardly be considered an invasion of privacy when the subjects are public figures in a public place, in the open air; specifically on a beach surrounded by other bathers."

So is it bad because everyone is entitled to privacy or is it acceptable because they are in the public eye therefore are immediately liable to privacy invasion?