Is it time that the press stopped whining about gagging orders?

[sp1814]

We all love a bit of gossip, but why is it that certain newspapers (well, mainly the Daily Heil) are getting so worked up over gagging orders?

It is NOT our right to know which footballer is having an affair, or which soap star had an 'away day' in Aiya Napa last month. It seems that certain newspapers are livid, because they're being denied the right to sell more copy.

Is this in the public interest, or is it something that that public is interested in (there's a BIG difference).

Are we a nation gagging to know who is sleeping with whom and when?

http://www.dailymail....stars-shame-ever.html

[joggerjayne]

"it's slop on bread"

Well, yes ... that's kind of what constitutes a pizza.

[237SJ]

You haven`t been to the right pizza joints MR

[MarkRae]

That's the equivalent of asking "have you been to the right chip shops?" or "have you been to the right burger bars?"...

[237SJ]

No it`s not. You can get really good pizza in Italy. I make good pizza at home. It`s not slop. It depends where you go.

[MarkRae]

> You can get really good pizza in Italy.

You certainly can! You can get really good junk food in most countries too...

[joggerjayne]

Hey, guys ... Love you lots, but I can't stay awake now.

Be good, yes ??

237 ... I'm glad we're pals.

MR ... you need to come back down to "Sussex By The Sea". Renew your acquaintance.

Night, guys ... x x x

J

[237SJ]

Night JJ x

[MarkRae]

> MR ... you need to come back down to "Sussex By The Sea". Renew your acquaintance.

Is that an invitation, JJ...?

[tamborine]

How can the Bulger case compare with Prescott cavortings ? We should be allowed the sleeze of limelight seekers.

[Gromit]

sp1814,

The problems with Super Injunctions is their total Squashing of freedom of speech. We hear about the hIgh profile celebrities, presumably because the press already have the story and are frustrated about not being able to prInt it. However, for every one of tnose, there might be 10 crooked bankers, dodgy lawyer, or wealthy Tax evader who is using the legal technique to keep inconvenient truths from the public.

It is typical of the tabloid press that they are chasing the wrong people, and only make the loudest protestations when they are unable to print drivel about some Z list soap star. Were they making this much fuss when Sir Fred Goodwin took out his gaggig order?

Super Injunctions are a bad thing, and the law should be changed to prevent the super rich (or anyone else) from using them.

[jno]

has JJ gone? Good, that has freed Gromit to answer the question. I agree with the arguement against superinjunctions, where not only are parties to the legal action gagged, *everyone* is gagged, so I would not only be forbidden to tell you who they were, I'd be forbidden to tell you than an action had even been brought. Gagging the entire population seems to me a grotesque perversion of what the law exists for.

[joggerjayne]

"has JJ gone? Good ... "

=0(

[Quizmonster]

JJ, if you're still interested, conflab with an 'L' is listed in The Oxford English Dictionary. It's been around in the USA for over a century and has sometimes been used here in colloquial situations, too. So, you stick with it, ma'am, if you want to!

[sp1814]

Fro it

Thank you - you've hauled this thread back from the brink of becoming a massive joggerjayne/MarkRae flirting session.

Yes - I agree that that newspapers should be able to shine a light on corrupt politicians, bankers etc - but it's none of our business if some unelected star is having an affair. It's not illegal, and it's none of our business.

[Sqad]

sp1814......I agree entirely.

[Gromit]

sp1814

It may not be any of our business, but the Super injunctions do not suppress the newspapers they suppress everyone.

The one which this celeb has acquired stops anyone mentioning it anywhere in the world. It is exerting powers over people that do not fall under its jurisdiction.

A judge has interpreted the European Human Rights Act (possibly wrongly) which says this celeb has a right to privacy. Then he is using that law on anyone from Karachi to Katmandou. Most of the world will not have even heard of this celeb, nevermind be bothered who they are screwing. And apart from anything, it is completely unenforcible.

[sp1814]

Gromit

But in the world of global instant communications (Twitter feeds, blogs etc), wouldn't the injunction HAVE to cover all territories? If it didn't then then the story could easily be placed in one of News International's US-based papers, then leaked to the UK press under the guise of 'well, it's out in the open now'.

I can totally understand the reasons behind publishing a story which shows a celebrity or politician up for being a hypocrite (John Major's 'Back to basics' campaign during the period where he was knocking boots with Edwina Currie for instance).

But I honestly don't feel the need to read about someone's affair unless it somehow relates to their public role.

[Gromit]

The law has to be equal for everyone.

You cannot have one law for politicians and one for celebrities, it has to encompass everyone. If they want privacy, they should stay a private person. If they take the public's money, the public have a right to know what kind of person they are paying the wages of. If you are not bothered, don't buy a tabloid newspaper or watch SKY.

[Sqad]

Gromit

<<<<<The law has to be equal for everyone.>>>>

It is, it is the interpretation of the law which is not necessarily equal and the interpretation can be expertly manipulated by well paid and astute QC's.

If one can afford the best then one is likely to get a good result.

[WELSHYORKIE]

That's true in medicine as well, isn't it sqad - which is why you are probably in the med while the rest of us have dear old blighty - lol