to think the super-injunction couple and David Cameron could take a PR lesson from Justin Welby?

[LuluJakey1]

I think the dignity and humility with which Justin Welby has handled the disclosure about his biological father, the circumatances of the conception etc makes a fascinating contrast with the super-injunction couple and David Cameron.
Justin Welby's position is much more sensitive in terms of public scrutiny of morality, values etc, yet he has behaved with humility, openness and emerged from it all probably with new-won respect from many.
Contrast the super-injunction couple who have mishandled their seedy behaviour being exposed trying to cover it up and prolonged the agony and speculation and press interest.
Contrast also Cameron and his shenanighans this week over his family wealth and tax matters.
Welby has followed the three rules of PR in this sort of situation: Tell it all at once, tell it yourself and don't try to hide stuff. The other two have made a bigger mess by not doing, have encouraged further scrutiny and hypothesising and have emerged poorer in the perceptions of many because of their choices.

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.

That statement from someone keen to make lots of money out of a kiss and tell story isn't necessarily massively reliable, and I don't think it necessarily justifies publication. It would depend, for instance, at least in part on whether the person involved also had unsafe sex with the famous partner, which of necessity this witness won't know. As much as you may not consider that their right to privacy is paramount, I would suggest that the newspaper's wish to publish prurient rubbish is equally not paramount either.

Boogers makes a very valid point about the sheer hypocrisy of the Press. You won't see anything in the very anti-EU Mail about the fact that Dacre has claimed £460,000 in subsidies from the EU; nor are the papers generally publishing the results of a survey which showed a large majority of the public being in favour of greater Press regulation. Their views of what the public is or is not entitled to know are incredibly selective - yet they self-righteously accuse any celebrity who wants to protect their privacy of hypocrisy.

Two seconds on Twitter tells you who the superinjunction couple are:

• how can their PR deal with that?
• how is knowing about their sex like in the public interest?
• do you think the couple should have just gone to a journalist they trusted and said here's our story we want you to tell it rather than have a superinjunction which just excites the press while the public continue not to actually care? I remember when the papers were threatening to 'out' Stephen Gateley. He just went to the Sun newspaper, came out in a very honest way and the next day the headline was simply 'I'm gay'. He shouldn't have been put in that position, but he got there before they did, told his story and didn't lose his fans.

Augusta- you are still wrong . Your original statement was that 'there is no suggestion that safe sex has not been practised'. There is actually a legally sworn affidavit that unsafe sex was 'demanded'.
I am not arguing the morals or the details- couldn't give a toss. We'll never know unless there are recordings- God forbid! However, if you make a fortune from your celebrity status and a significant part of that status comes from a charity you have set up that promotes safe sex and you are a major mouthpiece for that charity- you have put yourself out there by choice and it is a public interest story.

It is similar to the last Tory government preaching family values and morality and half of them were revealed to be screwing around with anything that moved and fathering children their wives knew nothing about.

Surely there's a difference between a sworn affidavit and a "kiss and tell" story? An affidavit is a legal document, not a story that's been told to the Sun or Daily Mail!