Celebrity injunctions

As we know, there is an injunction in force at the moment involving the extra-marital activities of one member of a famous celebrity couple.

It will be interesting I think to hear what people think of the subject in general. Please don't mention the names of the couple who are believed to be involved on this occasion.

A Scottish newspaper has named them so I don't suppose it will be long before others do the same.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/chose-name-list-super-injunction-7724893#ZpEMYQcAbgSq6D4f.97

Victims of their own egos. I don't suppose that anyone really cares what they get up to, but trying to hide things just makes people more curious and determined to find out.
I know who they are and quite frankly, not worth bothering about.

No, I'm not in the least bit interested in them.

It's just pointless in these days of the Internet trying to stop stories getting out.

It's not like in 1936 when the U K was kept in blissful ignorance of the impending crisis with Edward VIII and his plans to marry Wallis Simpson until he actually abdicated.

I hasten to add that I do not remember the story personally, I heard it from my mother.

Freedom wrote:As we know, there is a super injunction in force at the moment involving the extra-marital activities of one member of a famous celebrity couple.

I hope I'm not being pedantic but it isn't a super-injunction, its just an ordinary injunction. The difference being that the press are not allowed to report the existence of super-injunctions

I'm happy to be corrected, thank you. I'll amend the original post.

AndyB wrote:

Freedom wrote:As we know, there is a super injunction in force at the moment involving the extra-marital activities of one member of a famous celebrity couple.

I hope I'm not being pedantic but it isn't a super-injunction, its just an ordinary injunction. The difference being that the press are not allowed to report the existence of super-injunctions

According to this it is a super-injunction..


A Scottish newspaper has printed the identities of a celebrity couple who took out a superinjunction to suppress details of alleged infidelity that has been the subject of growing global speculation in recent weeks.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/10/scottish-newspaper-reveals-identity-superinjunction-couple

Maybe the paper is mistaken?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-injunctions_in_English_law

Yeah - AndyB is correct on this and the Guardian have got it wrong.

According to this an MP is about to name the celebrity couple in House of Commons (Like the Giggs stuff a few years back).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3533105/Echoes-Giggs-affair-Scottish-newspaper-publishes-celebrity-love-cheat-protected-England-Wales.html

I don't know how I didn't realise until now that the solicitors acting for the couple are a certain Carter-Ruck!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/celebrity-injunction-blog-editor-threatened-with-imprisonment-after-breaking-high-profile-couples-a6980276.html

The vicar in this story might have preferred a news blackout too!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3544171/Grantchester-star-Robson-Green-accused-running-vicar-s-wife-striking-affair-local-gym.html

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-36073383

More about the injunction.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36103975

Celebrity injunction case: Supreme Court delays decision
1 hour ago
From the section UK
Supreme Court
A decision over an injunction taken out by a celebrity to keep an extra-marital relationship out of the media will be announced at "a later date", the Supreme Court has said.
The celebrity - known in court as PJS - is appealing against an appeal court ruling lifting a ban on him being named in the media in England and Wales.
The Supreme Court said the hearing was over and it would reserve judgement.
An injunction granted by the Court of Appeal remained in force, it added.
Earlier this year, the Sun on Sunday wanted to publish an account of the man's alleged extra-marital activities, but he argued that he had a right to privacy and took legal action.
On Monday, three Court of Appeal judges ruled that the injunction should be lifted.
Lawyers for News Group Newspapers, publishers of the tabloid, had successfully argued that the ban should go because the man has been named in articles abroad and his identity could be found on the internet.
Supreme Court president Lord Neuberger announced at the conclusion of Thursday's legal argument that the court would "take time to consider this matter".
The panel of five justices would give their decision "as soon as we can", he added.





Other link deleted for the time being as it names the couple. If anyone wants to see it, please send me (Freedom) a private message.

What is he point of a Supreme court it it keeps deferring decisions?

I can't see a problem with that myself. The judges just need a bit more time to reach a decision.

Was reading about another famous person hiding behind an injunction over here but is getting named in America...

I say famous person.... Did a quick google search and never heard of him.

But never watched Downtown Abbey myself.

Lordy lordy.Hugh  you really shouldn't have said that

If he's the one I'm thinking of, this is an old story?

By the way, it's taking a long time for the judges to decide on whether the celebrity couple injunction should be lifted.

Guinea Pig wrote:If he's the one I'm thinking of, this is an old story?

By the way, it's taking a long time for the judges to decide on whether the celebrity couple injunction should be lifted.

In the hope that the general public will forget about it.
Don't think the media will

@GP.

It is an old story as the injunction was taken out in 2011.

These injunctions really are ridiculous.

I can't see that this particular person is fabulously wealthy (unlike the other one), so why spend all this money on it.

His Mrs probably found out straight away anyway.

If it's just a case of an extra-marital affair - YAWN!

Honestly, who apart from Mr X's wife, would give a monkey's!

It wasn't even an affair.

He paid 150 squid for a bunk-up with some hooker.

Then forked out tens of thousands since to stop Joe public finding out.

Just read elsewhere he confessed to his wife straight away as well.

He should have asked Hugh Grant for advice on how to deal with the repercussions!

By coincidence here is a new story about the case of Mr X.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3573866/Now-family-man-actor-outed-publication-having-slept-Wayne-Rooney-prostitute-named-social-media-despite-gagging-order.html

A piss take from the Sun in a roundabout way...

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/7128263/Downton-Abbeys-Hugh-plays-hero-in-new-play-about-press-freedom.html

Freedom wrote:By coincidence here is a new story about the case of Mr X.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3573866/Now-family-man-actor-outed-publication-having-slept-Wayne-Rooney-prostitute-named-social-media-despite-gagging-order.html

Just read that. A well known star.... really?

Hardly top profile. Get one of Bennetts polls on the case and the majority have never heard of him.

He can include his word 'boner' which is more apt for this.

Some Z list pays a call girl to stick a carrott up his bum. Or whatever.

Mark William-Thomas of McCann fame and sod all else, from what I recall, made an interesting tweet about injunctions yesterday.