Is this a case where we really ought to mind our own business?

[sp1814]

The tone of this story seems wholly wrong to me:

http://www.dailymail....Court-injunction.html

Okay - so an MP has taken out an injunction to stop the papers from revealing something "sensitive and personal" about her 17 year old son. But If the lad hasn't done anything illegal, then why should we have the right to stick our noses into his private affairs?

"It means millionairess Mrs Spelman joins the ranks of a string of footballers and celebrities who have turned to the Human Rights Act to keep their secrets."

But it's not her secret, it's her child's.

Am I wrong to be saddling up my high horse on this? Still cantering around the paddock at the moment, so I have time to dismount...

[sandyRoe]

She seems to have inadvertently achieved what she was trying to prevent. Few will have heard of her, or her son, but now Mail readers will be wondering what's the story.

[ludwig]

// If the lad hasn't done anything illegal, then why should we have the right to stick our noses into his private affairs? //

We shouldn't. The tabloids would like to be able to publish anything about anyone at any time with impunity - it makes their job easier, and they couldn't really give a t0ss about who gets hurt in the process.
Whether their scumbag muckraking excesses are the price we have to pay for a free press, I'm not sure.

We'll have to see whether anything changes as a result of Leveson.

[shoota]

Yes to your title question - blatant exercise to sell more papers.

[sandyRoe]

There might be a story there about the lad's school. £10,000 a term fees and yet at aged 17 one of their pupils appears to be semi-literate.

[Zeuhl]

<<Why can't famous/well known folk have secrets like the rest of us mere mortals? >>

They can't because they are profiting and gaining status from being a public figure.

If Ms Spelman (or Hugh Grant etc) had a magic wand would she now use it to protect her son by turning herself back into an anonymous <mere mortal> without the status and income they currently enjoy. I suspect not.

The issue here is that Spelman's son has made no such pact with the devil. He may have benefited indirectly but probably none of it was his choosing.

It's unlikely that invading his privacy would be in the public interest and so he should be protected from the sordid intrusions of the gutter press.

[youngmafbog]

I agree with you SP, unless of course the story involves the parent (eg abuse or corruption). But I suspect in this case it does not so the child must be protected. It is actually a correct use of the law rather then to protect ones own indiscretions like many a footballer and TV personalaity.

[anotheoldgit]

sandyRoe

/// but now Mail readers will be wondering what's the story. ///

You really believe that do you Sandy.

I bet there are thousands everywhere (not just Mail readers) who will be itching to know what the secret is.

Wouldn't you Sandy?

[Gromit]

The problem is, super injunctions, so called gagging orders, have themselves become newsworthy.

[shoota]

It would probably only take about 5 minutes research on FaceSpace or TwitBook to unearth what this lad has been up to now that we know he has been up to something.
I think the judge was wrong to allow the family name to be publicised as it is the boy that is the 'victim'. Different if it was the mother who is a public figure.

[sasskins]

I agree the boy is entitled to privacy, but I'm not sure about this whole thing. I completely agree with Sandy -
*She seems to have inadvertently achieved what she was trying to prevent. Few will have heard of her, or her son, but now Mail readers will be wondering what's the story.*
Maybe the injuction is more about her than her son.

[rojash]

The fact that the DM has published this story just goes to show what a disgusting and conscienceless rag it is.

The readers' comments are pretty enlightening too - embittered, petty, mean-spirited.

20 years ago the Sun was the epitome of the gutter press - now it's the DM.

[Gromit]

To be fair to the Daily Mail, all the national newspapers and some local ones are reporting the story.

http://news.google.co...num=1&ved=0CD8QqgIwAA

[rojash]

You're right gromit. Perhaps someone could bring it to the attention of the Leveson Enquiry.

[sp1814]

The issue that I have with this story is that it's not even about someone in the public eye - it's a minor *related* to someone in the public eye.

Also, the injunction that was sought was to cover not only her child's name but her family's name too. It's only because that second part was not upheld that it's hit the papers.

[anotheoldgit]

Thank you for correcting rojash on his usual DailyMailphobic remarks.

You would have thought he would have been intelligent to check before making himself look rather silly.