Crosswords0 min ago
Super-Injunctions
30 Answers
As this story reaches its final giddy heights, i think we are in danger of losing sight of the real issue here.
The problem with SI's is not when they are used by entertainment figures to cover up affairs - which surely teaches them after this, that you are better letting the media publish, and the story die a death, than try and suppress it and be made to look like a rich coniving cowardly fool, instead of just a rich faithless fool.
No, the issue is that if SI's are used to cover up activities by MP's, heads of public companies, lawyers, judges etc., then we do have a serious issue with the supression of free speech and the public interest.
Let's hope that does filter down among the frothy nonsense about a footballer who has behaved badly, and then compunded his actions by behaving shamefully as well.
Any ideas about protecting his wife and children from publicity will look rather pointless in the morning.
The problem with SI's is not when they are used by entertainment figures to cover up affairs - which surely teaches them after this, that you are better letting the media publish, and the story die a death, than try and suppress it and be made to look like a rich coniving cowardly fool, instead of just a rich faithless fool.
No, the issue is that if SI's are used to cover up activities by MP's, heads of public companies, lawyers, judges etc., then we do have a serious issue with the supression of free speech and the public interest.
Let's hope that does filter down among the frothy nonsense about a footballer who has behaved badly, and then compunded his actions by behaving shamefully as well.
Any ideas about protecting his wife and children from publicity will look rather pointless in the morning.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by andy-hughes. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
also agree on para 3 and one of the reasons that DC and the boys and girls have to sort out this mess to protect freedom of speech re acess by the press - but then to give out injunctions where deliberate falsehoods are being raised to try and flush out stories, i.e. the dirty side of the newspaper industry.
"when joe/josephine bloggs does it, everyone can and does know about it."
No they don't. Apparently about half of married people are unfaithful at least once. We hear about maybe a millionth of them, and that's still too many for me. This man's affairs are none of my business. People only get high and mighty about it because they think he has too much money. They don't care about Joe Bloggs because he hasn't got any.
No they don't. Apparently about half of married people are unfaithful at least once. We hear about maybe a millionth of them, and that's still too many for me. This man's affairs are none of my business. People only get high and mighty about it because they think he has too much money. They don't care about Joe Bloggs because he hasn't got any.
Halifaxmum, no, I'm saying I hear about a millionth of the affairs that go on, and so do you (if that many). I have no idea what sort of public persona he likes to present and don't care, but as far as I know he's a footballer, not a deity, and he can do what he likes off the field. If he ends up losing sponsors like Tiger Woods, tough; but I still don't see it as any more of my business than Joe Bloggs' affairs.
The trouble with super injunctions is that it allows the principle that we can all be legally kept in the dark, even though society is supposed to be for the benefit of its citizens. This means that it should be difficult enough to justify specific injunctions: but I suspect impossible to envision a scenario where a super injunction was an option for either individuals or companies hoping to hide embarrassing activity could be justified.
Time to do away with the so called super injunction, I suspect.
Time to do away with the so called super injunction, I suspect.
<<<<All I can say is if you don't want the fame, stay out of the cheating game>>>
Why do people smoke?....they know it is an addiction and bad for their own health as well as everyone else's.
Why do people drink to excess?...they know it can kill them and lead to family breakdowns.
Why do people cheat on their partners (male and female) when they know it can cause pain and family breakdown?
Because they are all types of human failings and we ALL have those because we are human beings.
The answers on CB are heavily weighted against the male, because 90% of CBers are female..............the male opinion is heavily criticized and diluted.
Why do people smoke?....they know it is an addiction and bad for their own health as well as everyone else's.
Why do people drink to excess?...they know it can kill them and lead to family breakdowns.
Why do people cheat on their partners (male and female) when they know it can cause pain and family breakdown?
Because they are all types of human failings and we ALL have those because we are human beings.
The answers on CB are heavily weighted against the male, because 90% of CBers are female..............the male opinion is heavily criticized and diluted.
Sqad - I think in this instance that opinion is against the male, because he is the one who has behaved badly in this instance.
The reason why an SI was granted is nothing to do with the fact that Digs is rich, or a footballer, or even that hie is a Manchester United player - the SI was granted because the judge's ruling was that publication of this rumour - and remember everyone, at this stage that's all it is - is not in the public interest.
The use of the term 'public interest' - is the important factor here, it has nothing to do with public curiosity and moral outrage - that's what sells papers - it has to do with the right of the individual not to have his basic privacy infringed simply because he happens to be a famous sports personality.
Once set in motion, the media got itself in a right tizzy, because they wanted to be able to 'name and shame' and shift shedloads of papers, but in fact the train has run onto a side track about free speech versus privacy, a far more serious matter than a simple story about celebrity folk and their alleged goings-on.
This is going to run and run - so Digs has royally shot himself in the foot - never a clever response for a footballer - because his name will be around for far longer than a simple 'scandal' exposure.
The reason why an SI was granted is nothing to do with the fact that Digs is rich, or a footballer, or even that hie is a Manchester United player - the SI was granted because the judge's ruling was that publication of this rumour - and remember everyone, at this stage that's all it is - is not in the public interest.
The use of the term 'public interest' - is the important factor here, it has nothing to do with public curiosity and moral outrage - that's what sells papers - it has to do with the right of the individual not to have his basic privacy infringed simply because he happens to be a famous sports personality.
Once set in motion, the media got itself in a right tizzy, because they wanted to be able to 'name and shame' and shift shedloads of papers, but in fact the train has run onto a side track about free speech versus privacy, a far more serious matter than a simple story about celebrity folk and their alleged goings-on.
This is going to run and run - so Digs has royally shot himself in the foot - never a clever response for a footballer - because his name will be around for far longer than a simple 'scandal' exposure.
andy
<<<<Sqad - I think in this instance that opinion is against the male, because he is the one who has behaved badly in this instance. >>>
I take your point, but following these "infidelity " threads particularly in CB and R&D, the opinion is almost ALWAYS" against the male and would this " burst of emotional morality" have occurred if the famous person had been female?.......I doubt it.
I would hazzard a guess, that if superinjunctions were as cheap as divorces, then we would see a multitude of these legal loopholes. However nobody would be interested in your affair, my affair or Doc's affair, so there would be little point in spending the money to "protect2 our offspring, many of which haven't got supportive parents.
<<<<Sqad - I think in this instance that opinion is against the male, because he is the one who has behaved badly in this instance. >>>
I take your point, but following these "infidelity " threads particularly in CB and R&D, the opinion is almost ALWAYS" against the male and would this " burst of emotional morality" have occurred if the famous person had been female?.......I doubt it.
I would hazzard a guess, that if superinjunctions were as cheap as divorces, then we would see a multitude of these legal loopholes. However nobody would be interested in your affair, my affair or Doc's affair, so there would be little point in spending the money to "protect2 our offspring, many of which haven't got supportive parents.
