Camilla Tominey argues we can judge the private lives of celebrities because they invite us to do so

Journalist Camilla Tominey speaks in proposition of the motion that This House Believes we have the Right to Judge the Private Lives of Public Figures.
This is the fifth speech of six.
Ms Tominey is an Associate Editor of the Daily Telegraph, covering politics and the royal family.
#debate
SUBSCRIBE for more speakers ► is.gd/OxfordUnion
SUPPORT the Oxford Union ► oxford-union.org/supportus
Oxford Union on Facebook: / theoxfordunion
Oxford Union on Twitter: @OxfordUnion
Website: www.oxford-union.org/
ABOUT THE OXFORD UNION SOCIETY: The Oxford Union is the world's most prestigious debating society, with an unparalleled reputation for bringing international guests and speakers to Oxford. Since 1823, the Union has been promoting debate and discussion not just in Oxford University, but across the globe.
The Oxford Union is deeply grateful and encouraged by the messages of support in response to our determination to uphold free speech. During our 200 year history, many have tried to shut us down. As the effects of self-imposed censorship on university campuses, social media and the arts show no signs of dissipating, the importance of upholding free speech remains as critical today as it did when we were founded in 1823. Your support is critical in enabling The Oxford Union to continue its mission without interruption and without interference. You can support the Oxford Union here: oxford-union.org/supportus

[@ReverendDr.Thomas]

JUDGING the actions of others is a normal, natural and necessary function of every thinking person. However, one should PASS judgement solely on those over whom one has direct or indirect authority.

[@peterkerruish8136]

I have only made it to this stage of my life because I and all of my ancestors have judged everything and everyone, it's what humans do.

[@rc5759]

I saw her at Royal Ascot. Backed her each way in the 3.30.

[@strech5412]

By Ms Tominey’s logic I can criticize her fashion choices because she chose to wear those clothes, so here goes: Leather is disgusting, and skinny pants are so 2019! Every person sitting behind her is blanching and looking away, preferring not to “have that image forced on their mind”. My comment is Her own fault, right?

[@VincenzoInfi]

Best segment here. Woman is spot on

[@Reading720]

It is an easy line to draw between a certain amount of privacy versus no privacy at all. Just distinguish the difference between malice or not. If the celebrity is a good person then give them some privacy, if the celebrity is up to no good then it is fair game. Don't forget that a celebrity is a human being like you and I, nobody deserves to be bombarded 24/7 unless the person is up to no good.

[@ReverendDr.Thomas]

Good and bad are RELATIVE. 😉 Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱

[@wirdy1]

Not such an easy line to draw. Who then decides your line between malice and professional scrutiny? There is already a well-defined threshold for criminality in our penal systems and also plenty of examples of 'good persons' who turn out to be nothing of the sort.

[@ReverendDr.Thomas]

@@wirdy1 JUDGING the actions of others is a normal, natural and necessary function of every thinking person. However, one should PASS judgement solely on those over whom one has direct or indirect authority.