to think this is clearly a happy, happy marriage

[marryoneorbecomeone]

Nothing to see here, just a happy couple. The Daily Mail said so, so it must be a FACT.

Still standing better than I ever did

YABU to link to the DM who are clearly having a strop and trying to be clever about it.

Tbh I don't think the question is whether they have a happy marriage or not? Who are we to judge that? They say they have an open marriage. Open relationships are more common in gay partnerships. End of. It's typical of the scummy DM to publish a sarcastic article mocking them.

Disclaimer: I've not read the article just the comments on this thread.

The significance of not enabling comments is that they would have to pull the story if the comments section gets filled with completely unrelated words like 'injunction' or 'threesome'

Whilst I started reading with a wry smile, by the end it just felt snide and cruel. They went too far. And whilst I'm not usually a "will nobody think of the children type", I'm really not comfortable with photos of two small boys alongside incredibly thinly veiled insults of their parents whatever the back story.

It is fascinating though legally isn't it?

Im not interested in the content and I will never understand why a celebrities happy marriage or affairs matter one jot. But I can't wait to see what happens next. Where does the story stand legally?

It is fascinating though legally isn't it?

Agreed. Will the article last longer than this thread?

I think attempting

I see the leaders of MN groupthink are out I. Full force

How gorgeous are those boys though?

snort!

I am fascinated though how a paper that was villified on here recently for quoting a thread from a bereaved mother (amongst many things) is now acceptable.
As I said in my previous post that article is passive aggressive nastiness by the DM as they have failed to overturn the injunction.
So today the DM is ok because it is piss taking an "accepatable". (To the mumsnet collective). Celeb.
Next week it will be a rag again.
Can't have it all ways

I agree with Maryz
I wish I'd not clicked as its obvious from the comments here what the feature is about.
I feel dirty

I find the situation fascinating. The doesn't mean I find the mail acceptable.

It's possible to see the situation as interesting without being a cheerleader for actually either party. I used to be professionally involved in libel cases.

A comparison would be boris Johnson suing David Cameron for libel - you don't have to like either of them to be interested.

I know we all like to be the person that hates the daily mail the most but shockingly there is, imho a bigger issue.

I think most people are saying they found the article amusing despite the fact that they don't like the DM, no one is claiming that they suddenly find it a discern in read.

I think people are amused by the fact that a couple who use magazines and photos of their children to highlight what a perfect family life they have are hypocritical at best and loathsome at worst. They want to protect their children's privacy EXCEPT when they want to bring out another smug feature in Hello/OK to demonstrate what a perfect family they are.

Er april, you're going to get MN in trouble. Am reporting the thread before MNHQ has a call from Elton's lawyers.

Maryz I'm not going to let your disappointment define me.

I don't instantly think the DM is brilliant btw. Far from it. But I do think it's fascinating to see them try and get round a law which is clearly farcical, all the while completely unaware of the utter hypocrisy of their stance.

SHINYNEWUSERNAME .it was all splashed over scottish papers and seeing as how i am a scot living in scotland i am doing nothing wrong ..injustion only in england and wales .

April is in Scotland is aware of items in the news that she unable to openly discuss with Mumsnetters in other parts of the U.K., its completely ridiculous and censorship for no good reason.

You are not personally doing anything wrong, april but social media sites can be sued for allowing content that contravenes the law. Why do you think the DM has disabled comments for its article?

I don't think they do use their DC to show "what a perfect marriage they have".

There are relatively few photos of their DC and most seem to be carefully managed photos taken in private. (Apart from the holiday snaps which always seem a bit intrusive.) They obviously try to protect their DC from the media unlike the Beckhams

PS I totally agree that the current legal situation is ridiculous. I just don't want MN to get sued

I'm not moaning about Mumsnet btw, if the thread gets pulled I would understand completely, it's the law that I'm moaning about

The Fail is very good at this type of thing.

And Pagwatch is right. It is interesting. They are skirting oh so carefully around yesterday's ruling. What will the rest of the press do. Will this story turn up on The Papers for example as a way for TV to refer to it with knowing winks.

But at least the English press won't be able to refer to certain things, every single time this couple are in the papaers, because that's what they would do They would refer to a private incident which happened many years ago, no matter what the press article was about. I think that's what the couple are trying to prevent.

The couple know we all know, but the press can't say it! That's what the couple care about.

Very bitchy. David Furnish always reminds me of Cliff Richard. They do the same facial expression.