Superinjunctions

[NormanTebbit]

Why have judges suddenly decided that a man's right to be an adulterer takes precedence over her right to free expression? Why shouldn't she ho yo yhe papers? Why shouldn't she get paid fir her story?

he decided to pay for sex/ have an affair, he should have thought of the consequences fir his wife and family before he did it.

The reason that judges have decided this, is because they themselves are men on the whole and so have more sympathy with the sexually incontinent shaggers who want the super injuctions, than they do with the women who might be thinking of selling their stories.

Their reasoning is driven by mysogyny. Let's face it, people who sell their stories about shagging a sleb to the newspapers, are pretty unattractive. It's a pretty sordid thing to do. Having said that, the vast majority of these girls are very young, with no self-esteem (who with any self respect would shag someone with the looks and personalities of John Terry or Wayne Rooney or Jeremy Clarkson anyway?) and voiceless, in contrast to the powerful men they shag who have with 24 hour access to the media. Journalists seduce these young women with the siren call: "we'll give you a voice". But these are exactly the sort of people whom judges don't think should have a voice.

And of course the judges have also used the politically correct argument, that if these women are allowed to sell their stories, the children of these men might be bullied in the playground. The fact that it is the behaviour of their fathers which has exposed these children to that potential bullying (and that actually this is a school issue, not a media one) makes that one of the biggest pieces of hypocrisy the judiciary have trumpeted for a long time.

Is this the first time feminists have agreed with tabloid journalists?

I am also extremely irritated that these celebs seem able toget a judge out of bed to sign this ridiculous injunction. What if shagger decided to do a ' my sex addiction hell' type story and she wanted an injunction? I bet she wouldn't get one.

How does the wife deal with this? Can she bring it up in divorce proceedings? It's disgraceful.

I wondered that too

I don't know but I should imagine divorce proceedings would be unaffected as they are behind closed doors.

But the wife would be unable to go the press and tell thr world what a shit he is.

I know it's not high brow stuff, it's the gutter press, but I do wonder whether there will come a time when 'the top married, family values politician who enjoys visits yo a mistress or prostitutes is able to obtain an injunction to prevent political embarrassment.

Well surely that time is already here?

If footballers can do this and the principle that upholds it, is that children might be bullied, then politicians with children can claim this too, no?

agree Norman. why should the justice system be the tool of wealthy philanderers?

I struggle to see how this is anti feminist. Surely it's not just men who cheat. I'm inclined to think that unless a tenet of your job is integrity, eg judge, politician then there is a right to know. But if you just happen to be a well known actor/footballer then surely there is a right to privacy?

It depends Bumper.

Why should your right to privacy, trump someone else's right to freedom of expression?

That's the balance of rights here.

And you're right, not only men are philanderers. However, I would lay money, on at least 95% (if nto 100%) of super-injunctions having been brought by men. So that makes it a gendered issue. However, unless the law changes, we'll never know...

it would be interesting to know how many superinjunctions are sought by men compared with women, and also how many are granted/refused to each sex. and what those superinjunctions were sought for. because of course we can never know because of their nature

because if proportionally more men are granted superinjunctions compared with women (of those who seek them) it would suggest that men are seen to have more 'assets' to protect. or that men's 'assets' are more worthy of protection. if more men seek superinjunctions is it because they get up to more damaging activities than women in general (or perhaps are more frequently caught), and are in a better position to challenge those alleging whatever it is?

I don't know, I;m speculating from a basis of ignorance really

If you don't want a low-rent shagger to expose you as a cheater, then don't fuck around. Simple. The concept of super-injunctions is odious.

Well yes that's an interesting angle WW (congratulations on your name btw ).

That recent case where the shagger footballer's ID was protected but the ID of the woman he had shagged was exposed, begs the question of why his privacy is more valuable than her's (his emotional assets if you like) and how come? Is it because he has so much money that he can buy the right to privacy but she can't? But surely legal rights to privacy or anything else should apply to all regardless of income?

i suppose the argument might be that she is the one threatening his privacy...

but as you say (thinking off the top of my head here, not really thought through) her 'assets' as they are (privacy, family relationships, etc) have already been devalued (by whom? - herself for 'choosing' her path? patriarchal society because she is a woman who has been coerced into sex for money/fame?). she has one way or another come to - or been made to - believe these things are worth losing for fame and money

agree with BOF they are odious because actually they are all about money aren't they. anyone in that position who fucks about doesn't care about the feelings of their family - they want to protect their future income

(thanks re name - am v pleased you get it! despite appearance I am a woman - the nameis a family joke)

I don't think these injunctions are just about piracy and protecting children, either. I think they are about protecting a brand. So many celebs will seek yo protect their reputation ( and lucrative endorsements, spots on TV, punditry etc)

Is that the role of judges? To protect someones business interests? When they are revealed to lack integrity?

I am sure 99.9% of superinjunctions are sought by men.

The lack of transparency means it is impossible to tell, and impossible yo say whether genders are treated fairly in the decision making process. Afterall women are treated more harshly, more likely to get custodial sentences than men.

Privacy not piracy

I'ld feel the same about a female celebrity seeking a superinjunction to hush up their infidelity tbh. Agree sgm re:bullying point. Am sure there's a lot in the media that could be bullying fodder for a kid. Every so often there's a column/interview by a non-celeb parent that discloses issues/feelings re:children that seems spectacularly unkind to make public.

I don't know. I understand the argument that because more men than women seek SIs it may be a gender issue. I suppose it's hard to tell if the injunction is as a result of the press trying to leak a story they have investigated or from the other person actively trying to sell their story, which I think is pretty odious.

I don't often have sympathy for celebrities in these cases, especially those who's very being and income seem dependent on being in the press. But for someone like an actor or footballer who is only famous for being very good at something they enjoy doing doing, well, I don't think it is fair to have their private life splashed about in the media, male or female.

Plus if a woman is shagging a celebrity famous enough that there is no doubt he has a partner should she not have some moral culpability too.

The protecting children thing is a load of bollocks though. I think it is about whether or not the sex life of a public figure affects their ability to do their job, an actor? No. Politician? Yes.

In cases of sexual abuse it is covered by law. Anything that may ID the child is Not Allowed. So injunctions are not needed although in other cases court orders are made to protect minors.

But again, it's about her rights to free expression. So she sells her story - like prostitution, the only reason she can sell is because we want to buy - is she to blame? Yes to some extent but our culture is culpable too. We all love a kiss and tell.

To me it just seems so hypocritical. That a celeb fucking a prostitute means he can be protected in law but she should shut up about it, even when he is parading his kids in OK magazine and selling products on the back of this image.

"I think it is about whether or not the sex life of a public figure affects their ability to do their job, an actor? No. Politician? Yes."

No I don't think it is just about that. As others have said, the actor/ pop singer/ footballer etc., is not just doing their job, they are also getting other jobs - lucrative advertising deals, marketing campaigns, merchandisng etc., off the back of their public image.

Their public image is part of their money making. There is something pretty revolting about a man like Wayne Rooney who is married with a child, using prostitutes. So he is not the best man to front a coca cola campaign because whenever I look at him, I think what a skank he is (not consciously, but sub-consciously). That also affects my perception of the brand he is selling. Brand Rooney depends on certain core values being synergystic with Brand Coca Cola, Brand Nike, Brand Walkers Crisps etc. (I know he doesn't advertaise those, but I think another shagger does? - can't remember which one). If the brands of the foootballers/ actors, etc. are tarnished too much, the brands who look for celebrity endorsement to sell more of their product, will not want to work with them, because they will be bringing their product into the saem company as the sort of skankiness associated with the England football team, for example. And that skankiness rubs off on their brand. It's the reason premium brands won't advertise in certain low grade publications or TV programmes - it's not jsut that they want to target their audience efficiently, it's also that "the company you keep" as a brand, re-inforces your brand image and you undermine it by putting it in the wrong place or associating it with the wrong person.

And whoever said it's not a judge's job to protect the brand image of a person or corporation, is right. It is a disgraceful misuse of the law IMO.

To those who bring it out as a feminist issue, what are your views about potential for Naomi Campbell, Kate Moss, Cheryl Cole et al taking out superinjunctions to protect their public persona when they behave badly.