AIBU?
£50,000 SUPER INJUNCTIONS footballers and business types/politicians.
ScousyFogarty · 12/05/2011 11:33
Its a serious and funny business; but I dont think rich people should be
allowed to buy secrecy for 50 thousand smackers. While poorer people have to suffer in silence.
On the prem football adulterers, Why do they get married?
The internet is involved in rumours. (I dont mind TRUE gossip) But LIES
leave a nasty taste.
Myself and Lily Allen are not an ITEM. I just like her songs "An Item" who invented that phrase?
Vallhala · 12/05/2011 11:43
Poor people aren't going to be in the papers if they screw around.
The press is interested in what John Terry does and will report it, causing mayhem in his life. I, on the other hand, can merrily screw around with whoever I like (as long as he's not JT or similarly well-known... chance would be a fine thing!). No chance of the Mail chasing me or my man for a story in the immediate future and therefore no reason to need to spend a fortune on covering our tracks.
Why do these guys get married? Why on earth does anyone? It's not just the famous who have affairs, problems and broken marriages y'know.
ScousyFogarty · 12/05/2011 11:48
THE INTERNET now it will be under pressure with legal restrictions being muted after someone appeared to break injunctions
I hope this does NOT effect Mumsnet because in the main posters behave sensibly (there are exceptions.) And it takes all sorts to make a vibrant Mumsnet...
Iam not a lawyer; but I know a bit about law. It will be difficult to control the world wide aspect of the Internet. Dave camerooney is probabley not up for it anyway
GOSSIP will go on. It adds spice. Only it must be made clear what is speculation when you go public I do for example sleep in my socks.
aldiwhore · 12/05/2011 11:53
Superinjunctions I don't have issue with really, they're in the media, there's masses of money involved for the telling of the story and its private so if they have to pay to keep it that way, fair enough. I do think though that a superinjunction should cover all those involved.
Yes its daft to get involved with someone who's famous and married, but why should these girls get their names dragged through the dirt, they're not the ones who've sworn oathes of fidelity are they?
I think our need to know who shagged who and when is more depressing than the trend for supeinjunctions.
that is true? It puzzles me tbhHipHopOpotomus · 12/05/2011 12:30
There is something wrong in a system that "protects the privacy" of one party, while restricting the freedom of another person to talk about/deal with his/her own life and issues. I think the way the girlfriend Imogen was treated is wrong and disgraceful and the courts should not be allowed to act like this.
SardineQueen · 12/05/2011 12:35
Gabby is that you?
I saw the thing yesterday about possibly restricting what can be said on the internet somehow... How? Can't be done unless we shut down all the freedom of it. It's different to the press reporting, people on the internet are individuals talking to each other, as they do in real life. How would they possibly police that.
ScousyFogarty · 12/05/2011 12:35
A local journalist told me they "Had to make it STAND UP"
I said that is easier at your age than mine. (nudge, nudge)
Ladies, models etc. Why do they always say we,ve had jockeys and JUDGES?
Does the judge keep his wig on; or shout "court adjourned" at the end of the session?
The jockeys? its just too funny 6 ft model..4 foot jockey
FER1 · 12/05/2011 14:36
I don't have access to Twitter. I wish someone could just bloody tell me who it is. Even the vile Mail will only say 'world famous actor'. And the thing is I don't really even care. But feel like I'm being left out of a big secret that everyone knows but me. Poor me.
ScousyFogarty · 12/05/2011 15:26
woopsidaisy. You must not go round saying you are stupid. This is not a mind
reading exercise. Obviously, I am experienced and will tell you things within the law. Nothing wrong in liking "gossip" but its best to know if its true or not.
we must not get involved in lawsuits; anyone watch the BBC TV series on famous libel actions. Its a crazy world. Barristers are the only real winners.
There are fun aspects of the Injunction business. We must stick to that.
Someonesaid the press dont target poor people. It depends on the circumstances. It can happen. French law on privacy is much different to ours. ....
I am still trying to fathom the naughty ladies and the judges....Patsy Rice Davis new a thing or two But thats history
izzywhizzyletsgetbusy · 12/05/2011 16:27
I'm not particularly interested in the sexual antics of those in the public eye, but I find it outrageous that any adulterers with the necessary dosh can cover their tracks to an extent that even their nearest and dearest will never know that they've been putting it about.
From today's press it seems that a famous actor has confessed to his wife that he used the law to hide the fact that he played away with a prossy and a sex toy.
So he's finally 'fessed up to one deceit but, given the nature of 'super injunctions', how can can his wife be certain that this lapse is a one-off and that he hasn't regularly played away with working and/or other women?
I suggest she runs a forensic comb through the family finances - I'd want to know how many other days his expenditure included The Stage £1.80, Daily Mail 50p, Cafe Nero £7.21, Lunch Ivy £138.91, Taxi £21, Superinjunction £50,758, Prestat chocs £75, Florist £251.75.
izzywhizzyletsgetbusy · 12/05/2011 18:59
Sorry Scousy. I should have clarified that this particular Ivy isn't one of the famous thespian's masseuses - it's an upmarket restaurant in the heart of London's theatreland and is conveniently close to the High Courts of Justice.
The Ivy is popular with luvvies & slebs and consequently has prices to match.
It's not my first choice for lunch or dinner, but it does do a very good Sunday roast.
To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.