Celebrity injunctions?????

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Apr 11, 2016 12:34 pm

It seems that if you live in Scotland or America the shenanigans of a celebrity couple who apparently have a highly charged sex life are available to the general public, whereas in England the media are running scared of an injunction.

I don't really care who it is, but why is the truth rationed depending on where you live ?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Apr 11, 2016 12:41 pm

Bruv;1494537 wrote: It seems that if you live in Scotland or America the shenanigans of a celebrity couple who apparently have a highly charged sex life are available to the general public, whereas in England the media are running scared of an injunction.

I don't really care who it is, but why is the truth rationed depending on where you live ?

The question is more "why are the press in some areas allowed to invade people's privacy"?

Post by **LarsMac** » Mon Apr 11, 2016 12:53 pm

Bryn Mawr;1494538 wrote: The question is more "why are the press in some areas allowed to invade people's privacy"?

The working theory in the Americas, seems to be that celebrities no longer have a right to privacy. "Freedom of the Press" trumps "Right to Privacy"

I really wouldn't mind if that changed. I couldn't care less what most of those people do, or think, or say.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Apr 11, 2016 2:44 pm

Bryn Mawr;1494538 wrote: The question is more "why are the press in some areas allowed to invade people's privacy"?

The question to me is why advanced nation's ideas of right and wrong regarding such things are so different ?

And more to the point, with the advent of the world wide web, what is the point of nation wide injunctions anyway ?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Apr 11, 2016 2:49 pm

Probably says more abut judges who don't grasp that with the internet you can read and watch american news media on line if you want to and thinks twitter is what birds do and goodness knows what he makes of facebook. The printed edition of the scottish sunday mail apparently carried the story but it's not on line cos it can be read in england.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Apr 11, 2016 3:17 pm

LarsMac;1494540 wrote: The working theory in the Americas, seems to be that celebrities no longer have a right to privacy. "Freedom of the Press" trumps "Right to Privacy"

I really wouldn't mind if that changed. I couldn't care less what most of those people do, or think, or say.

Celebrity or not, they are people - unless there is over-riding "public interest" (which in not just that the public are interested) then they have a right to privacy.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Apr 11, 2016 3:18 pm

Bruv;1494542 wrote: The question to me is why advanced nation's ideas of right and wrong regarding such things are so different ?

And more to the point, with the advent of the world wide web, what is the point of nation wide injunctions anyway ?

The answer to that is world government

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Mon Apr 11, 2016 3:19 pm

I was told who the recipient of the injunction was, this morning. Once the celebrities name was freely available in the Scottish press, it was a matter of minutes before it was flashed across the net.

No one I've spoken too, gives a toss what's gone on between consenting adults, however many are involved

Post by **LarsMac** » Mon Apr 11, 2016 7:54 pm

Bryn Mawr;1494547 wrote: Celebrity or not, they are people - unless there is over-riding "public interest" (which in not just that the public are interested) then they have a right to privacy.

Privacy has become a myth, it seems.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Mon Apr 11, 2016 9:09 pm

The age old question is, though, where do you draw the boundaries between what is in the Public Interest & what is Invasion of Privacy? The Panama Papers business is, of course, an Invasion of Privacy, as they were details attained by subterfuge. However, the information contained within was definitely in the Public Interest.

That Prince Harry took part in a private Fancy Dress party dressed in a Nazi uniform I would see as being an invasion of Privacy, despite his being heir to the throne (somewhere along the line). If, on the other hand, it had been a genuine Nazi gathering, that would have been a different matter.

Personally I reckon that Celebrities only take out injunctions in order to gain publicity, knowing full well that the 'protected' information will inevitably get leaked out (more than likely by themselves / publicity agents), and in so doing generating even more publicity for them.

All in all it's a sad reflection of why anyone should really be interested in the first place. Shock horror - Celebrity 'A' had sex with Celebrity 'B' ... So what?

Post by **spot** » Tue Apr 12, 2016 1:53 am

If the events leading to this injunction did involve, as I'm reliably informed, kiss and tell bed-romping with Vera Lynn and Valerie Singleton, then I for one look forward to clips on YouTube. Does the Sunday People not invent this sort of story any longer?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue Apr 12, 2016 5:15 am

Vera Lynn and Valerie Singleton ?

You should get out more.

patebon · Post by **patebon** » Fri Apr 15, 2016 10:26 am

has been bookmark, this seems like a very interesting thread

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Fri Apr 15, 2016 11:47 am

Sun on Sunday lawyers argue celebrity injunction should be lifted - BBC News

So, because it's been reported in jurisdictions where the injunction does not hold, the injunction should be lifted in the area where the celebrity lives?

Strange logic

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri Apr 15, 2016 3:41 pm

Is patebon a celebrity and has he an injunction ?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Apr 18, 2016 4:55 am

Bryn Mawr;1494665 wrote: Sun on Sunday lawyers argue celebrity injunction should be lifted - BBC News

So, because it's been reported in jurisdictions where the injunction does not hold, the injunction should be lifted in the area where the celebrity lives?

Strange logic

And lo, as the Sun desires, the Sun gets :-

Celebrity injunction 'should be lifted', Court of Appeal rules - BBC News

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Mon Apr 18, 2016 6:16 am

Bryn Mawr;1494715 wrote: And lo, as the Sun desires, the Sun gets :-

Celebrity injunction 'should be lifted', Court of Appeal rules - BBC News

They're right, though. If it's been published abroad & online, doesn't it seem somewhat idiotic that they should be banned from publishing it here. Isn't that called censorship? Mind you, I doubt there would be anything to stop them from publishing a URL.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Apr 18, 2016 7:38 am

FourPart;1494717 wrote: They're right, though. If it's been published abroad & online, doesn't it seem somewhat idiotic that they should be banned from publishing it here. Isn't that called censorship? Mind you, I doubt there would be anything to stop them from publishing a URL.

I'm all for the right to privacy of the individual so I, personally, would not call it censorship.

Post by **spot** » Mon Apr 18, 2016 7:47 am

Particularly since it's triggered by hold-to-ransom pay-for-the-story Max-Clifford-style profiteering on the part of a pair of treacherous gits cashing in, which any reputable paper would have shopped to the police rather than negotiate with. I'd include behavior like this in the next revision of the law relating to blackmail. I'm far more interested to hear, eventually, who the profiteers are rather than the couple who are about to be splashed in front of the breakfast table.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Apr 18, 2016 12:18 pm

spot;1494724 wrote: ........................are rather than the couple who are about to be splashed in front of the breakfast table.

It was a trio, a menage a trois, not a couple.............but I am interested in the splashed breakfast table part............have you been investigating ?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Apr 18, 2016 12:34 pm

Bruv;1494736 wrote: It was a trio, a menage a trois, not a couple.............but I am interested in the splashed breakfast table part............have you been investigating ?

First hand knowledge by all accounts

Post by **spot** » Mon Apr 18, 2016 2:39 pm

Bruv;1494736 wrote: It was a trio, a menage a trois, not a couple.............but I am interested in the splashed breakfast table part............have you been investigating ?

The ones trying to cash in are a couple. They menaged with the spouse of the fourth person who is the one who took out the injunction.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue Apr 19, 2016 5:12 am

spot;1494749 wrote: The ones trying to cash in are a couple. They menaged with the spouse of the fourth person who is the one who took out the injunction.

Yup.............Bryn was spot on.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Tue Apr 19, 2016 3:20 pm

Sounds to me more like they're all in it for the money. The more the publicity (gained by the injunction), the higher the price.

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Wed Apr 20, 2016 9:32 am

I can't see the benefit of spending in the region of Â£1,000,000 to hush it up, knowing that most of us with the will could find out on the net and knowing it's only a matter of time before the tabloids broadcast it all over the front pages.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Apr 20, 2016 10:37 am

Snowfire;1494809 wrote: I can't see the benefit of spending in the region of Â£1,000,000 to hush it up, knowing that most of us with the will could find out on the net and knowing it's only a matter of time before the tabloids broadcast it all over the front pages.

I honestly just couldn't be arsed looking, in the grand scheme of things it really doesn't matter who is involved.

It does matter that somebody can silence the news either side of the Scots/English border