To wonder what the point of an injunctions is?(88 Posts)
In the age of social media and access to news sources across the globe, it seems absurd to a layperson that a ruling that only applies to England and Wales would serve to keep a lid on a story? Anyone interested in discovering the identity of the person concerned can find out who the people involved are with a few taps of their keyboard.
Likewise in PR terms it seems a disaster, would it not have been better to just say ' yes we have an open relationship, both parties are happy with that and it is nobody else's concern, but we are disappointed people we considered friends sought to profit from our private life' rather than stirring up even more interest and gossip via an injunction that was never likely to be effective. I have no interest in who celebrities sleep with, but my interest was piqued by the heavy handed and ultimately futile injunction.
Is there anyone with experience of the legal/PR industries think of these injunctions? Are they an expensive waste of time or can they be effective in furnishing celebrities with a degree of privacy?
Apologies for the grammatical error in the title!
Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.
I think they made a lot of sense back in the day ie plenty was published abut the Royals in the 80s just not in this country, but in the digital age they are entirely antiquated - the Ryan Giggs episode was a fiasco on Twitter, but the only reason papers like the DM are clamouring as hard as they are to publish is because of their quite clear views on people like the couple themselves.
In many ways the couple would have been better to own the story in a "And???" sort of way. They certainly are neither the first nor the last couple to have a threesome and I'm quite certain no one perceived their relationship as either conventional or conservative.
EverySongBirdSays - that was quite an intelligent post but lost all credibility when you managed to get in a dig about the Daily Mail. I blame Cameron and his "hate" for the disabled.
The Guardian and Indie were pretty vocal about it yesterday too.
You're right insomuch as they should have 'owned' it.
potatoes a) have you read what the DM have been writing on this
b) where on EARTH have I said anything about either David Cameron, his hate for the disabled or otherwise anywhere in my post
Your post is quite perplexing
Also I said papers plural and "like" using the DM as example - any other inferences are entirely your own
Herecome, what are you on about? There was nothing like thAt at all in that post. How odd
"the only reason papers like the DM are clamouring as hard as they are to publish is because of their quite clear views on people like the couple themselves."
Are the Indie and Guardian like the Daily Mail? I doubt there are many that would support that idea as the people who love to hate Tories and any right wing papers see reading the other two as increasing their tolerant leftie credentials
I think the suggestion that the DM only cares about the story because they're against gay couples is insulting and ridiculous. That is surely what you were insinuating by "quite clear views on people like the couple themselves".
The DM are quite vocally homophobic actually if you recall the disgusting articles they've written in the past particularly Stephen Gateley's death. They have also historically been very vocally against same sex couples raising children.
Why then reference David Cameron and the disabled show me where I say that in my post or how it's at all relevant here.
"Why then reference David Cameron and the disabled show me where I say that in my post or how it's at all relevant here."
Perhaps I'm sensitive as the people who love to criticise certain news papers (and your doing so had no relevance to the post) tend to be the ones near-constantly berating a democratically government and those who support them.
Is the DM allowed to be against same sex couples raising children or is a race to be the most tolerant damaging society as people are afraid to have legitimate conversations?
re. Moir's article on Gately's death, I think this is a fair appraisal.
^She wrote: “I have never thought, or suggested, that what happened that night represented a so-called gay lifestyle; this is not how most gay people live. Rather, I thought it a louche lifestyle; one that raised questions about health and personal safety.”
On the use of the word “sleazy”, she maintained it was sleazy to “die on a sofa while your partner is sleeping with someone else in the next room”. A third man, Georgi Duchev, did return to the flat with Gately and his civil partner Andrew Cowles but it is not clear why he returned.
Moir also restated her support for “same-sex marriages”.
She then turned her attention to the “bile, the fury [and] the inflammatory hate mail” she said she had received and added: “To say it was a hysterical overreaction would be putting it mildly.”
Moir wrote: “I can’t help wondering: is there a compulsion today to see bigotry and social intolerance where none exists by people who are determined to be outraged? Or was it a failure of communication on my part?^
I apologise for the off kilter comment. It struck me though, that if one were able to shoehorn a little bit of DM-directed hate into their post, perhaps they were going to
attack Cameron, Tories and their more controversial recent actions as per the current MN trend.
Herecome a lot of users of this site have disabilities or have family with disabilities, I think that's why understandably there is a general majority on here against Cameron.
This conversation did not include him at all so for you to do so seems very like your attacking or mocking people who are really left wing.
Disliking the dm is not just a left thing. Lots of people from different walks of life don't like it.
"Disliking the dm is not just a left thing. Lots of people from different walks of life don't like it."
EverySongBirdSays was at pains to point out she said papers "like the DM" including, as far as I can see from yesterday's papers, the Guardian and Indie. That's my point. It was a clumsy and tenuous link, having a go at a particular publication.
Would it be unfair for me to attack or mock people who are left wing? Perhaps, but it seems to be the done thing here to do the same to anyone right wing and it's the double standards and hypocrisy that are so extremely frustrating, exasperating and really boil my piss.
Come on potatoes. The DM is a gossip tabloid that makes shit up about celebrities and gives totally unnecessary and negative "insights" (i.e. pure speculation and gossip) into people's lives. All the "broadsheets" reported on the injunction - it doesn't make them "like the DM".
Your behaviour on this thread is nothing short of bizarre potatoes and none of your posts have anything to do with the subject matter, you are derailing it - i think criticizing the papers IS relevant actually. The Mail are chomping at the bit to print this and one can all but write the articles for them based on what their journalists and columnists normally espouse. If they can get three articles out of Tom Cruise's daughter going to the shops imagine the mileage they can get out of this on their so called Sidebar Of Shame.
The sex life of this couple is of no-one's concern as long as it is above the law
*it struck me though, that if one were able to shoehorn a little bit of DM-directed hate into their post, perhaps they were going to
attack Cameron, Tories and their more controversial recent actions*
1) Why would I do that on a thread that isn't about the Tories/Cameron/policy?
2) Why do you care so much that people don't like them?
Is it perchance because you are a Daily Mail reading Conservative voter who believes in bringing back the Workhouse?
The couple would be better off owning it yes.
@Rea - It wasn;t me who first used the phrase "like the DM". That was Every. when she decided the DM was relevant to the OP's post about injunctions.
@Every. Do you really not see the hypocrisy in each and every one of your posts? I'm not sure I can point it out any more clearly. All of the papers are "chomping at the bit" to print this. You are complaining about the DM based on an article they haven't, and legally can't, print. If you have an issue with something they do then that's fair. Criticising them for something they haven't is bizarre.
According to you, "the only reason papers like the DM are clamouring as hard as they are to publish is because of their quite clear views on people like the couple themselves." yet other papers comments are purely from a journalistic point of view? Really?
I have many faults and am well aware of them but happily, blatant hypocrisy isn't one of them.
Have a lovely day.
Hypocrisy isn't one of mine either and you are ignoring my well reasoned responses and generally choosing to be obtuse.
I hope you have as lovely a day as the one you were wishing me.
Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.
Yes, I read the DM (among others). Yes, I'm a Conservative voter
SHOCK PLOT TWIST
You have an axe to grind and the only person trolling this thread is you.
<casually sidesteps past the random derail back to the op>
I have no experience of pr but to me it seems a waste of time and money paying for injunctions if people know there is an injunction. It's basically the same as one of the DC strutting around saying "I know something you don't know!" To a sibling and then whining when said sibling tries to find out what they know. If info is hidden it's much more interesting for some reason.
* "I know something you don't know!" To a sibling and then whining when said sibling tries to find out what they know. If info is hidden it's much more interesting for some reason.*
Absolutely. I wouldn't have read more than the headline had they been named but, with all those silhouettes and question marks over the press, I spent far longer googling it and looking to find out who the celebs were.
I'm probably a bit naive but I hadn't figured this out (who was involved) until I read this thread (too many hints). Must say it was a lot more interesting when I didn't know who was involved. Now it's like- meh, who cares?
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.