I have to say my opinion on these has gone back and forth on these over the last few days. On the one hand, I find it hard to see how the world will end if we don't know who shagged Imogen Thomas... but at the same time, it does look very odd that the rich man gets legal protection while the poor woman is "named and shamed". Also, while most of the injunctions seem like they're covering pretty trivial events, it seems to me that the injunction covering Fred Goodwin, whose bank was bailed out by the taxpayer, could very well be covering up something that is very much in the public interest. And who's to say where it will lead... would many of the stories that emerrged from the MPs' expenses scandal now be injuncted if it happened today? It doesn't seem too much of a leap from the tenuous reasons for some of these injunctions that Jacqui Smith's husband watching porn would be ruled a private matter and not in the public interest.

 

But, on the other hand, I certainly don't believe all injunctions should be outlawed... for people like Maxine Carr and the Jamie Bulger killers, injunctions are needed because those people would have their lives at risk otherwise. So it's a tough one.

 

Thoughts?

Oh, it was

____ _____

, you just have to look at any forum to find out. But yeah, it's incredibly difficult to see where a line can be drawn on such issues - especially the injunction stopping us from calling Fred Goodwin a word rhyming with wanker.

Oh, it was

____ _____

, you just have to look at any forum to find out.

 

I have to admit, despite getting on my high horse in that first post, I did spend about two hours one evening last week searching the net to try and see who it was :ph34r:

It's the celebrity ones that need clamping down on isn't it? The Imogen Thomas one is lol, would fully love it if it game out in the papers. V.sure something will be done and they will all be lifted eventually. Each judge is just inconsistent. For example, why was the John Terry one lifted whilst the other superinjunctions have stayed?

On a completely unrelated topic, anyone read this great piece from the Telegraph about Hugh Bonneville, star of Downton Abbey (that show about those long-gone days where the lives of the rich aristocracy were shrouded in secrecy)? It has some great insights about how much he enjoys being in Woods:

 

Hugh Bonneville's simple pleasures

 

Few, if any, users of the Twitter social networking website make a better advertisement for married life than Hugh Bonneville, the Downton Abbey star.

 

The 47-year-old actor has lately regaled his 16,600 followers with his happy experiences at Chessington World of Adventures with his wife, Lulu, and nine-year-old son, Felix. It is the simple pleasures for Hugh: he talks, too, of his joy at "jogging through a bluebell wood... glorious."

 

His tip for wholesome television viewing for Easter Monday? Just William on CBBC. "It's superb family viewing," he decrees. The star not merely of Downton, but also of films such as Scenes of a Sexual Nature and Conspiracy of Silence, Bonneville has undoubtedly come a long way since he started out at the National and the RSC in productions of The School for Scandal and 'Tis Pity She's a Whore.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...-for-words.html

 

Sounds like such a nice guy that I just felt I had to share it here. :)

Don't you also find that Ryan Giggs is a superb footballer Danny? :)

Also, sorry for going wildly off topic, but does anyone else find Alan Shearer and Gabby Logan have really good chemistry when she subs for Lineker on MotD?

High five for Shearer tbqf

I refuse to believe the (strictly allegations) that it's Ryan Giggs tbh.

I refuse to believe the (strictly allegations) that it's Ryan Giggs tbh.

 

Its definitely true. Can't be anyone else. The media have pretty much given it away anyway

I don't really know anything about football, but gossip at work mentioned Ryan Giggs.

 

Does he fit the bill of 'family man with a squeaky clean image'?

^definitely.

I'm also in two minds about this one. On one hand I think it's unfair that the super-rich are able to get these granted but, on the other, I am all for putting a stop to kiss and tell stories. Imogen Thomas wants this superinjunction lifted so she can make an absolute mint from the worst kind of daily rag simply because she managed to coax a famous face out of his kecks.

 

I truly wish this nation's public would stop being so interested in salacious gossip but, then again, even I went straight on to Twitter to find out who it was when they were talking about it on Frank Skinner's Opinionated last week.

 

So, yes, lift them but only allow the press to print the story in brief - a single column on page 26 with no pictures and no follow up interviews. Perfect :D

Judges are in a bit of a legal mine-field as far as these things go... It's a fact that most judges would really rather NOT set precedents and would rather there be some kind of primary legislation in order to guide them to possible legal remedies... I know it doesn't seem that way, but it is nevertheless true....

 

Which is why I think we should seriously consider a "Privacy Law"... France has legislated in this area, and it hasn't exactly stopped the torrents of vilification and abuse that gets heaped on the likes of Sarkozy, so I think it could work here so long as it was done very, very carefully.... But then, it's bloody hard to trust a politician these days.... -_-

I understand the need for them in the cases like Danny mentioned, but stopping a footballer being named and shamed because he couldn't keep his dick in his pants? p*** off. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

I understand the need for them in the cases like Danny mentioned, but stopping a footballer being named and shamed because he couldn't keep his dick in his pants? p*** off. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

 

But WHY do we need to know?

We don't NEED to know, but that doesn't mean they should be able to hide behind this. Normal members of the public can't hide being an injunction when they have a particularly embarrassing incident, or they sleep around and their marriage ends. They become the talk of their neighbourhood and why should 'celebrities' be above this? Just because they can kick a ball in a field doesn't make them above the law or better than normal people.

There is a twitter account set up which has been telling all about these celebrities who may have a super injunction.

 

If anyone is interesting I think this is it but obviously the info isn't accurate...or is it

Why would

**** *****

have an affair with a slag. Nah not having that at all.

There is a twitter account set up which has been telling all about these celebrities who may have a super injunction.

 

If anyone is interesting I think this is it but obviously the info isn't accurate...or is it

 

:huh: Did I forget to post the link?