Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Quite. I just don't get the prurient interest in this. I don't think any laws have been broken. Unless they have, or there is great comedy value, I don't have even the remotest interest in the sex lives of celebrities. They're not politicians.


alice Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> People over 21 have sex. so.

Oh dear, it's all a bit messy


But fark, it's not 'if' this kinda thing is going to leak out, it's when


Do showbiz people live in a bubble, I suppose they do somewhat


And yeah, after a very short while on Twitter you'll see their names



Still, I'm sure there'll be a Hello magazine type renewing of vows in the not to distant future


😳

I agree that by taking out an injunction they have made it a much bigger story. I do have some sympathy with them however, in that this really isn't something which the press should have been publishing in the first place. It is a total invasion of privacy and potentially quite damaging to their family. I don't buy the argument that there is any public interest angle.

I got it now (duh!) it's a damage limitation excercise


EVERYONE knows who this is, and if you don't, then you were never interested or cared anyway, so that's you parked up


The big fella buys a million quid's worth of time, via an injunction of no use other than to stave of the inevitable 'publicity'


Meanwhile, it's common knowledge on 'internet' but not in news print/website of UK media


By the time 'it can be published' it's old 'yeah boring' news and barely 'page 4-5' news


Fireworks pissed on, and we move on

The injunction is only an interim stage anyway. If there wasn't a decent case that reporting the story was (in law) wrong they would never have got an injunction in the first place, so even if this goes expect the case to go on, with a claim for big damages in the event that they print the story.
  • 4 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • That's fantastic news. Good on him. 
    • I pass here almost every day and have never seen the local business struggle to load. There's plenty of space as things are.    Seems to me this is just the meddling council being ****heads yet again. These are their reasons: "BAWDALE ROAD Goose Green add a total of 35m new 'DYLs' on both sides south-east of its junction with Lordship Lane (22m on the side of No. 157 Lordship Lane, 3m o/s No. 2 Bawdale Road, and 10m opposite No.2 Bawdale Road) to protect access for large vehicles coming to collect from and deliver goods to the nearby businesses"   Consultation here: https://consultation.appyway.com/southwark/order/1c3a8926-8f51-47e1-8460-2727fec6d895  
    • The next Dulwich Hill SNT meeting is on Weds.11th June 2025 5pm at Christ Church Batty Road. Open to all Dulwich Hill Ward residents and businesses. It is realised that 5 pm is not suitable for everyone, but even when held at 7 pm. some people complained that it was children's bath/bed times and wanted it earlier/later. When later times were proposed, there were still complaints- not able to get babysitters/did not want to go out/return home in the dark!. Times are always not going to be convenient for some people. These meetings are held quarterly and are very informal. They give everyone a chance to meet the local team and exchange views/concerns relating to crime/anti social behaviour etc.
    • If it is, it’s highly poisonous according to the Wildlife Trusts. https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/wildlife-explorer/wildflowers/black-bryony
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...