Is this the end of celebrity gagging orders?

by worriedmum 09.04.16 23:35

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/08/celebrity-threesome-injunction-government-poised-to-re-draw-the/?WT.mc_id=e_DM108143&WT.tsrc=email&etype=Edi_FPM_New_AEM_Recipient&utm_source=email&utm_medium=Edi_FPM_New_AEM_Recipient_2016_04_09&utm_campaign=DM108143

The Telegraph is reporting that the Government is considering re-aligning the demands of the public's right to know against the imposition of gagging orders by the rich and powerful.

Could this be the end of the 'super-inaudibles'? big grin

by MRNOODLES 10.04.16 0:03

worriedmum wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/08/celebrity-threesome-injunction-government-poised-to-re-draw-the/?WT.mc_id=e_DM108143&WT.tsrc=email&etype=Edi_FPM_New_AEM_Recipient&utm_source=email&utm_medium=Edi_FPM_New_AEM_Recipient_2016_04_09&utm_campaign=DM108143

The Telegraph is reporting that the Government is considering re-aligning the demands of the public's right to know against the imposition of gagging orders by the rich and powerful.

Could this be the end of the 'super-inaudibles'?

Yes flush them down the (deleted) big grin

by Guest 10.04.16 7:55

We don't have the right to know that someone's been involved in a threesome. It's their business, nobody else's. Who cares? IMO.

by Guest 10.04.16 8:54

Ladyinred wrote:We don't have the right to know that someone's been involved in a threesome. It's their business, nobody else's. Who cares? IMO.

True for private citizens.

But we have the right to know if they have been preaching on thing publicly and doing something else privately.

"Back to basics" and "family values" springs to mind... Mr Major.... Ms Currie... and a whole host of others (members of the Royal Family).

These were people in positions of power and totally open to blackmail.

Freedom of speech, freedom of information... helps to make a free society.

If there are good reasons behind public exposure I'm all for it.

by Guest 10.04.16 9:13

The couple involved haven't been preaching, as far as I'm aware, and they're not politicians. So nobody's business.

by Guest 10.04.16 9:15

Ladyinred wrote:We don't have the right to know that someone's been involved in a threesome. It's their business, nobody else's. Who cares? IMO.

I agree . If that's their thing then who are we to judge but if they want to run the risk of their exploits being divulged then maybe they should be a bit more choosy about who they are with. That aside, I do think the super injunction is soon to be no more. As shown by the press this week, there is always a way around it.

by Guest 10.04.16 9:20

It's the Sun that wants to expose the identities of the couple. Why? Gossip and titillation.

by Guest 10.04.16 9:22

Ladyinred wrote:The couple involved haven't been preaching, as far as I'm aware, and they're not politicians. So nobody's business.

"A High Court judge initially refused PJS’s application for an injunction and said the newspaper was entitled to “correct” the “public image” presented by the celebrity when he had engaged in that sort of “casual sexual relationship”".

The judge initially thought some public image needed correcting.

I'm all for exposing hypocrisy.

Aren't we all?

by hentie 10.04.16 9:28

If you act in a criminal way or in an immoral way, the fact you can be exposed should come to mind and curb unacceptable behaviour.
How far do standards fall in UK if bad or criminal activity can be hushed?

My opinion only but maybe I'm old fashioned as I believe conscience should play a large part in our actions.

by plebgate 10.04.16 9:52

I did read that the injunction was finally granted because of the children and the damage it might do to them.

Shouldn't this couple have thought of their children before doing the deed?

IMO too many people put their own needs/wants before that of their family and then start bawling when it suits them.

Expose the lot of them - if they are ashamed of being named, don't do the deed in the first place.

by Amy Dean 10.04.16 9:57

I agree with Ladyinred.

It's pathetic in my opinion that anyone trying to sell kiss and tell stories involving consenting adults isn't told to sling their hook.

by hentie 10.04.16 10:10

plebgate wrote:I did read that the injunction was finally granted because of the children and the damage it might do to them.

Shouldn't this couple have thought of their children before doing the deed?

IMO too many people put their own needs/wants before that of their family and then start bawling when it suits them.

Expose the lot of them - if they are ashamed of being named, don't do the deed in the first place.

Agree with you plebgate.
Too often actions of adults damage children. The adults put their needs before that of their child/children.

Isn't that what we have witnessed in our main topic of conversation re a certain family?
Poor Madeleine.

by plebgate 10.04.16 10:17

Well said hentie, well said.

by sallypelt 10.04.16 10:24

Good to see that gagging orders will become a thing of the past. Imagine if we were prevented from ready about such a huge scope as the article below:

Ant McPartlin and make-up free wife Lisa Armstrong look casual at the airport as they touch down from New York flight

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3531601/Anthony-McPartlin-wife-Lisa-look-fresh-faced-jet-New-York.html

Is it any wonder why the Newpapers are becoming a thing of the past?

by plebgate 10.04.16 10:32

I don't think she will be taking out a gagging order though.

This was online DM site, the fastest growing "news" site on internet.
Dumb I think but some seem to like it.

by kaz 10.04.16 10:38

The media are a complete mystery to me. They desperately want to uncover some stories and blatantly collude in keeping other stories out of the public domain. Wonder what the criteria are for deciding which stories hit the headlines and which are discreetly manipulated and kept low key and the biggest question, WHO gets to make the decision and WHY.

by sallypelt 10.04.16 11:13

I don't think this story is so much about who was having a threesome (who cares?? ) but more about the absurdity that the story has been published in the overseas media, and all over social media, but gagged from entering the British media. It makes Britain look stupid, and exposes the UK as resembling a dictatorship. I believe that the British government isn't happy about this exposure, and this is why there is a call for a change in the law. It's a question of where the dividing line is between freedom of speech and the Human Rights law to privacy? Your guess is as good as mine spin

by hentie 10.04.16 11:21

The Human Rights Law is an ass in its present form. It protects the worst and we've seen the effects that's had many times.
It needs modifying or scrapping!
The perpetrator of crime in UK seems to have more protection than victims in some cases.
The ordinary folk generally pay for their petty crime yet the terrorist can hide behind Human Rights to fight their case, improve their lot, or those with money or the right contacts can use it/them.

by Verdi 10.04.16 12:40

Freedom of speech? No such animal! Yes of course you can say what you like - providing you keep within the boundaries laid down by our illustrious leaders.

We are not living in a democracy, we are living in a veiled dictatorship. Always have been always will be.

by Guest 10.04.16 13:13

Amy Dean wrote:I agree with Ladyinred.

It's pathetic in my opinion that anyone trying to sell kiss and tell stories involving consenting adults isn't told to sling their hook.

But what if was same sex married couple trying to sell the "loving family" thing and banging on about the rights of same sex couples to adopt children?

Not saying that it is.

by woodpecker 10.04.16 14:28

BlueBag wrote:
Amy Dean wrote:I agree with Ladyinred.

It's pathetic in my opinion that anyone trying to sell kiss and tell stories involving consenting adults isn't told to sling their hook.
But what if was same sex married couple trying to sell the "loving family" thing and banging on about the rights of same sex couples to adopt children?

Not saying that it is.

Bluebag, I share your concerns. And it could be more than adoption, this theoretical same sex celebrity couple could be 'parents' via renting a womb and buying up a women's eggs. I find this practice unacceptable - a form of child abuse - so if the celebrity couple were 'parents' as described, I think they should be outed and the authorities should monitor the children.

by Amy Dean 10.04.16 14:41

What if the couple consist of one male and one female and their children are their own or adopted?

I would only have reservations about the adults engaging in extra-marital affairs if it affected the children in some way.

by hentie 10.04.16 14:47

With respect Amy Dean where a couple have extra marital affairs it destabilises a relationship or marriage. If not immediately it causes damage.
How can the repercussions not affect the children?
An 'open' relationship does not support consistency within a marriage and don't marriage vows count for anything anymore?

by plebgate 10.04.16 16:50

It is being reported online that the couple have been named in the Scottish papers today.

England and Wales are the only two Nations who cannot be told who they are. Absolutely ridiculous.

Democracy indeed. BOOO

by tinkier 10.04.16 19:10

plebgate wrote:It is being reported online that the couple have been named in the Scottish papers today.

England and Wales are the only two Nations who cannot be told who they are. Absolutely ridiculous.

Democracy indeed. BOOO

Information here #superinjunction "I'm still standing"?