Great Advertising For Swingfields 2016

Lips_Pearls · 4 July 2016

Mr_and_Mrs_Marmite said:
What we all do in our free time is up to us,

Behind closed doors yes...Publicly open like so? Not so sure..

BlancoGoGo said:
That's truly appalling. One of my Twitter buddies attended, and is now gracing the pages of the Daily Mail, fortunately they at least blurred out faces, but this!

Oh blimey! Hope they're not recognisable at all! x

RE pictures, well they say a picture speaks a thousand words and regardless of which paper(s) this is in, fact is it's appealing and a story on people like us, which I think is highly degrading. Especially to the 'nillas.
I highly doubt anyone can get anywhere either with pushing the papers for breach of privacy

Kittyk84 said:
Ok sorry but i have to say it was harmful, people were doing things out in the open that children and locals could see, there was drugs present which means someone could have od'd or been spiked and raped.
I think if they want to continue this festival then privacy fencing and strict and full searches are in order.

Agreed, esp with the latter sentence. Checks surely should have been made? I hope no serious issues happen to people as a result of this being exposed at such a high level.

Lips_Pearls · 4 July 2016

Mr_and_Mrs_Marmite said:
It's such a shame that people have been 'outed' in such a way.
There's a lady on (ahem...another site) that is in tears this afternoon, full face picture that isn't even pixelated, parents recognising her etc... sickening to think the reporters can get away with it.

No way?
She's been discovered and exposed?

Kittyk84 said:
I think if they want to continue this festival then privacy fencing and strict and full searches are in order.

This would have helped..

Lips_Pearls · 4 July 2016

Mr_and_Mrs_Marmite said:
Well all in can say is we will NEVER be going to such an event!

As for the drugs comment, that's only hearsay.... again i can't comment as I don't know the full facts, but it was from a scum paper.

The young lady i said about being exposed, maybe she knew it was a public event bit still doesn't give anyone the right to out her the way they have.

Life changing for some maybe?

I'd say this could be life changing indeed for some.
The press shouldn't have done this, there's no mistaking that..
However that said, they've not broken any laws. Or have they?
I am sure SF will be going for the jugular of the papers though..

This will no doubt have an effect on future events. Hopefully no one's lives will be severely affected. Also remember, papers will do what they can to smear things like this. But to vanilla peeps, this is making the whole lifestyle look awful.
Meh. x

Therapon · 4 July 2016

Lips_Pearls said:
I'd say this could be life changing indeed for some.
The press shouldn't have done this, there's no mistaking that..
However that said, they've not broken any laws. Or have they?
I am sure SF will be going for the jugular of the papers though..

This will no doubt have an effect on future events. Hopefully no one's lives will be severely affected. Also remember, papers will do what they can to smear things like this. But to vanilla peeps, this is making the whole lifestyle look awful.
Meh. x

My understanding is there is nothing to stop anyone from taking photographs of private property so long as they are taken from a public area. So if the event can be seen from the road nothing illegal has taken place, the moral question however is a completely different thing. The problem is sex sells and those 'nillas are no doubt happy perving those "disgusting" photo's. The newpapaer itself will no doubt defend it's right to publish, as it did with Hillsborough.

mrandmrspink · 4 July 2016

Kittyk84 said:
Ok sorry but i have to say it was harmful, people were doing things out in the open that children and locals could see, there was drugs present which means someone could have od'd or been spiked and raped.
I think if they want to continue this festival then privacy fencing and strict and full searches are in order.

And you know this first hand to be a fact...?

Admin · 4 July 2016

Therapon said:
My understanding is there is nothing to stop anyone from taking photographs of private property so long as they are taken from a public area.

Hopefully or possibly, @SWINGFIELDS if this is the case then they can try and do something about the press and go for suing etc?
I bet they are very annoyed and probably will look into the legal side of things.

mrandmrspink · 4 July 2016

Kittyk84 said:
Er look at the picture of the sex swing outside and if people are being offered drugs which i have in clubs so i believe it and pretty sure a lot worse went on that wasnt reported or seen!

So you don't know it first hand to be a fact then

mrandmrspink · 4 July 2016

I have never seen/ been offered hard drugs at any of the 4 SF festivals. I have found out afterwards on previous years of a few people smoking weed (I have a poor sense of smell and cannot smell it even when in the same room, so stand no chance in the open air) As to the pic on the swing... that wasn't in full view of the road, nor even anywhere close. As to 'and pretty sure a lot worse went on that wasnt (sic) reported or seen' - yes, worse things were happening elsewhere - not at SF - people there were having consensual fun with other like-minded adults. There were no rapes, no murders, no war crimes, no deaths, no muggings, no child prostitution, no people dying of starvation/ lack of medical care.....

But if you want to believe that what is written by a member of the gutter press is the honest truth, that is - of course - your personal choice.

Lips_Pearls · 4 July 2016

mrandmrspink said:
I have never seen/ been offered hard drugs at any of the 4 SF festivals. I have found out afterwards on previous years of a few people smoking weed (I have a poor sense of smell and cannot smell it even when in the same room, so stand no chance in the open air) As to the pic on the swing... that wasn't in full view of the road, nor even anywhere close. As to 'and pretty sure a lot worse went on that wasnt (sic) reported or seen' - yes, worse things were happening elsewhere - not at SF - people there were having consensual fun with other like-minded adults. There were no rapes, no murders, no war crimes, no deaths, no muggings, no child prostitution, no people dying of starvation/ lack of medical care.....

But if you want to believe that what is written by a member of the gutter press is the honest truth, that is - of course - your personal choice.

Do you know if there can be any chases made through a legal challenge/legal route at all?

Twickerman · 4 July 2016

Unless individuals or organisations believe they have been libelled ie the newspaper in question lied about them, the copy does not say the organisers were aware of illegal activities or name individual law breakers as far as I am aware. It simply implies by association. The only other recourse would be a complaint to IPSO probably under Section 2 of the editors code.

Editors' Code of Practice

My bold for emphasis

2. *Privacy

i) Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life, home, health and correspondence, including digital communications.

ii) Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual's private life without consent. Account will be taken of the complainant's own public disclosures of information.

So any posts or pictures previously made public will be used by the highly paid team defending an action against a newspaper. Be prepared for friends, family, ex’s etc to be offered money for statements about plaintiffs previously being out or talking about their activities publicly.

iii) It is unacceptable to photograph individuals, without their consent, in public or private places where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The newspapers barrister says sneeringly to the witness, who will be named publicly and photographed by other news organisations going in to court, “You went to an event with over 700 strangers for the purposes of sexual activity in a field and you expect this court to believe you had a reasonable expectation of privacy?” The onus would be on the complainant to show this was not therefore a public place. Good luck with that

mrandmrspink · 4 July 2016

People have been reporting this to IPSO.

The Sun has now removed 2 of the photos from earlier and pixelated faces in others. This is sadly too late for some people but it is poor journalism that they could ever have made those pics public in the first place without doing so

Deleted member 1030 · 4 July 2016

mrandmrspink said:
People have been reporting this to IPSO.

The Sun has now removed 2 of the photos from earlier and pixelated faces in others. This is sadly too late for some people but it is poor journalism that they could ever have made those pics public in the first place without doing so

That rag has proved, time and time again, that it can get away with whatever it wants.

Deleted member 1402 · 4 July 2016

Has this put anyone off attending SF or other similar events?

mrandmrspink · 4 July 2016

VoluptuousVixen said:
Has this put anyone off attending SF or other similar events?

Some people will be put off, yes. However, there are already people who attended wanting to book again for next year

Deleted member 1402 · 4 July 2016

mrandmrspink said:
Some people will be put off, yes. However, there are already people who attended wanting to book again for next year

I'd go if I could, but I'm out to everyone anyway, but still wouldn't want to be in a newspaper.

LeeWidnes · 4 July 2016

Just a quick point, not one part of the 'arena' at Swingfields could be seen from the road/public highway. You could just about see part of the field that held the camper vans/caravans. The photo's of the whole area were taken from a low flying plane. Some other photo's were taken with a telephoto lens from an adjacent filed.

Most of the pics in the scum were taken with hidden recording equipment.

In the 3 days, I might of got a faint whiff of dope maybe twice. I wasn't offered any drugs of any sort apart from alcohol in the 3 days I was there this year or the 3 days that I was there last year either.

It won't put me off going again but that's because it can't harm me in any way shape or form being 'outed'

ThePlaygrounds · 4 July 2016

We, The Playgrounds, attended Swingfields 2016 for 4 days as co sponsors with the legendary club Townhouse, Xtasia, and Eurekas. along with others of a retail/online nature. Firstly it was a privilege to be in the company of such established, top of the league clubs and would like to think we all had a great festival, apart from some minor niggles that will not be shared on here. The people who attended this years festival were simply fabulous, and fun was had by all ... Unfortunately due to the Mail and the Sun newspapers this has potentially put future Swingfields events into doubt. I do sincerely feel for the people that have been outed in these so called newspapers.
As a community I believe we should support Stu and Deb along with the Swingfields team in condemning this, what looks like a witch hunt, about swingers and the lifestyle we enjoy.
This festival is admired all over Europe and something as a community we should be proud of. This was the best Swingfields to date and will only get better if we support Swingfields in the future.
Yes there are others who will moan about the toilets, showers etc. etc. but now Swingfields needs us more than ever.
As I stated last week on this thread if you are worried about being snapped by the tabloids then simply don't attend the festival. Any alternative lifestyle festival that attracts over 700 people will always gain the presses attention, that is the nature of the beast.
Come on guys don't let the gutter press destroy what we all enjoy, todays news is tomorrows chip paper

Rod
The Playgrounds
.

see-more · 2 August 2016

We would go next year, don't care what people think of us, we are living our lives as we see fit.

Great Advertising For Swingfields 2016

Admin

Admin

Twickerman

Deleted member 1030

Deleted member 1402

Deleted member 1402

see-more

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency