Sleb injunctions

[Seabag]

Note to self 'read the thread'

[Jeremy]

Salsaboy Wrote:

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

> Vern & Tess.

Yes... star-bob-star already shone a light on that one...

[Seabag]

This is like that game where you wear a post-it on your forehead. Only this time you CAN'T out yourself

Ok, so here goes

Do I play a piano and the pink oboe?

[nxjen]

Well, "whoever" it is, they're still clinging on

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36081635

[edcam]

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.

[nxjen]

The "Streisand Effect" has been quoted a lot regarding this, i.e. in general most people aren't that interested or particularly want to know what happened UNTIL steps are taken to prevent us from knowing. "Somebody" is just digging a deeper hole for himself.

[*Bob*]

A salient lesson in how taking out an injunction to stop people looking at something that they probably weren't that interested in looking at will - sure as eggs - lead to everyone immediately wanting to look.

[Seabag]

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

😳

[Earl Aelfheah]

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.

[nxjen]

Just remembered there's some history here which puts it in a different light. Public interest or vindictiveness?

[????]

Am I the only one whose interested in naked wrestling in an olive oil filled paddling pool then?

[Earl Aelfheah]

Is that an offer quids?

[????]

:)

[Salsaboy]

I'm in, if it's between Quids and Rahrahrah.

???? Wrote:

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

> Am I the only one whose interested in naked

> wrestling in an olive oil filled paddling pool

> then?

[Seabag]

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

[DaveR]

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.

[nxjen]

Bearing in mind Seabag's analysis

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/may/19/supreme-court-upholds-celebrity-threesome-injunction

Whatever

[Salsaboy]

Who cares. Old news now.