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

    • Is there there additional parking restrictions because of the country show? They apply every year: https://southlondon.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/london-borough-of-lambeth-temporary-traffic-and-parking-restrictions-brockwell-park.pdf
    • There was a lot in Camberwell Old Cemetery. 
    • True.  And I'll have a look online. Thank you for the explanation. I have just googled, and that is indeed the case with certain weeds. I had no idea that this could happen, so thank you.     The below is apparently all Southwark Council has to say. They don't say why they remove weeds, just that they do, and how. They've got a lot more to say about Japanese Knotweed, which does indeed cause problems, but which they don't remove! However I've never noticed any round here.  
    • It's probably less of a priority for them than it appears to be for the OP! Nobody is saying that local businesses are not part of the community. But in the context of this thread, there is a clear distinction between local businesses set up to make a profit for individuals and local non profit organisations set up to help groups and individuals in the community. What has living in social housing got to do with anything? And who is forcing anybody to "accept a secondary definition" or telling anybody to "shut up"?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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