Augusta You are wrong- it has been stated by the person involved in a sworn affidavit that the half of the couple involved in the affair insisted on unsafe sex regularly.
It isn't just the Mail, other newspapers have raised the same fuss and another is preparing a challenge to the Super-injunction. The Mail is just more prurient - and does not like the couple involved. But the Press nationally are angry about the farce of this Super-injunction and how the couple have used it to restrict Press freedom here.
DH has a good friend who writes for one of the broadsheets and he reckons there will be at least one challenge, possibly more this week because editors are becoming more and more hacked off by the ludicrousness of the freedom of the Press issue- their colleagues are now printing it around the world, it is all ver social media and the internet and is now being printed in newspapers as close to us as Scotland. DH and I could have driven across the border today, we were up near Kielder on the border, and bought one of the papers but could not buy it in Northumberland. Not that we want to buy it but this couple should not have that power to control the media in those circumstances and dictate what we can and can not read. We can make that choice for ourselves- read it or not.
They have made poor choice after poor choice and they want to protect their image and people's perceptions of them by controllng what we are allowed to read- yet everyone else in the world can print it. The public is aware of what they have done. There is an argument it is a public interest story for reasons I outlined in a previous post, and there is an argument the law has allowed itself to become an ass in these circumstances.
I go back to my original point- once info is out there, there are ways to handle it to ensure it become fish and chip papers quickly. They are still trying to control knowledge - the law looks farcical now, it has allowed itself to be used completely ineffectively to no moral or ethical purpose.
I have no interest in this couple or their life choices but I do have an interest in how some judges appear to allow celebrities to use super-injunctions in ways that are more about self-interest and so called 'protection of human rights' which is always the claim for the SI. These appear to over-ride one of our basic and fundamental freedoms as a society- the freedom of the Press. I think it is very dangerous when we allow celebrities to compromise that over issues of their own making- always related to sexual choices it seems thinking back to recent SI's eg Ryan Giggs, the bloke from Downton Abbey, footballers,other actors, rock stars. They court publicity, live off the money and celebrity it brings creating false realities about themselves.
The real numpties are the people who love celebrity gossip and hang on every word, who worship the cult of celebrity. Just as I choose not to buy any of those magazines (although I defend the right of publishers to print them and others to read them if they choose to) I think I ought to be able to choose not to buy a newspaper with this story in it rather than not be allowed to make that choice because someone else controls what the Press here publish.