So who are these celebs that have been involved in saucy activity? My money is on Ant and Dec 😆

It is nuts that the names have been printed in America but even the publication can’t be named here.

It is nuts that the names have been printed in America but even the publication can’t be named here.

even more silly since we have the internet.

I’ve not idea if I can name the individual on here or if the injunction covers it but have a look at @peterjukes timeline on twitter for information on one under reported case.

I really don’t care

Mods please close the thread, Bruneep doesn’t care.

Anyway, in the few moments this thread has left, it really doesn’t take a rocket man scientist to work out who it is. When will celebz remember the Streisand Effect exists?

Personally, I don’t care whether celebrity X is boffing celebrity Y. Celebrities break wind, go to the toilet and occasionally have sex with one another – who’d have thought it?

I do care, however if the ex-head of a bank has dodged taxes on selling property in London. I also think it’s very important if our Prime Minister has been dodging paying the morally correct amount of tax on his £40m fortune.

I always think that super-injuction is either the perserve of the super-rich and sensitive, or that there is something that needs covered up.

Not actually all that interesting but funny all the same.

My money is on Ant and Dec

All I can say is I feel sorry for the Iguana.

It’s small sacrifice really. Shame that he went breaking his heart when specifically asked not too but he’ll still be standing even if it is like a candle in the wind.

Could you please furnish the thread with more details?

It’s small sacrifice really. Shame that he went breaking his heart when specifically asked not too but he’ll still be standing even if it is like a candle in the wind.

Did I Re—a-d that Dwight?

Oh yes all very clever, but people have a right to their private lives. There is no legitimate public interest in these people’s sex lives, it’s just voyeuristic prurience. Millions of pounds of public money haven’t gone missing because of their bedroom antics (or whatever).

And, err, it’s not a super injunction…

http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/john-whittingdale-and-dominatrix.html

kona couldn’t agree more, it’s not news but why the injunction. Just brings more attention.

What is it if not a super injunction?

Oh yes all very clever, but people have a right to their private lives.

Fair enough. Sorry (it’s the hardest word).

couldn’t agree more, it’s not news but why the injunction. Just brings more attention.

Because if you don’t have a court tell evil global media corporations to stop abusing people’s private lives, they won’t.

You think injunctions are counterproductive? What about all the ones you haven’t heard about?

Konabunny +1

Honestly, how sad have some sections of society become that people’s private lives have to be turned into a media circus? Look at all the genuine problems in the world that need/demand public attention and take a good long look at your sorry selves in the mirror.

What about all the ones you haven’t heard about?

Fair point but if the press wanted to reveal me as a whatever this celeb has done I couldn’t afford to take out an injunction.

Well I heard about it on Radio 4 this morning so was curious.

Some explanation here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/07/celebrity-who-took-out-injunction-over-extra-marital-threesome-i/

I think anyone who thinks taking out a super injunction can keep things quiet these days is “pissing in the wind”.

I also think it’s very important if our Prime Minister has been dodging paying the morally correct amount of tax on his £40m fortune.

Eh? The only ‘morally’ correct amount is the one that the UK tax rules say you should pay.

I know of one Northern Irish celebrity who has an injunction out to keep his sexuality out of the news. I have no problem whatsoever with his sexual preference but it does seem very disingenuous when this individual constantly champions gay rights issues on his shows whilst trying to appear impartial.

What is it if not a super injunction?

An injunction. A super injunction prevents the reporting of the case and that an injunction exists.

A quick google suggest it was a Strictly All Star Family affair 😀

If said celeb is making money from having squeaky clean image or politician from having trustworthy image then is it not fair that we find out the truth?

Fair point but if the press wanted to reveal me as a whatever this celeb has done I couldn’t afford to take out an injunction.

The press has no interest in you, because you are not rich and famous.

The press has no interest in you

I am hurt 😥

The linked article above is nothing to do with it – Ministers don’t generally meet the definition of celebrities for the purposes of the Sun etc.

EDIT: Sorry I missed the incredibly subtle clues earlier in the thread.

jimjam – Member
I know of one Northern Irish celebrity who has an injunction out to keep his sexuality out of the news. I have no problem whatsoever with his sexual preference but it does seem very disingenuous when this individual constantly champions gay rights issues on his shows whilst trying to appear impartial.

He certainly doesn’t like the Robinsons! 😆

Eh? The only ‘morally’ correct amount is the one that the UK tax rules say you should pay.

I think you are confusing moral and legal

So who decides what a moral amount to pay is then? Why have tax law at all? just allow people to pay what they think they ought to.

Morals shouldn’t come in to taxation.

I also think it’s very important if our Prime Minister has been dodging paying the morally correct amount of tax on his £40m fortune.

Well there is nothing to worry about as he doesn’t have such a thing.

If said celeb is making money from having squeaky clean image or politician from having trustworthy image then is it not fair that we find out the truth?

2) I think you’d have to show that the politician’s capacity to exercise a public function is actually affected by their private conduct or that they’re acting in a way that’s seriously incompatible with their policies.

1) I think for a celeb it’s even harder to justify intrusion into their private life. I have no idea what Lloyd Grossman’s private life is like but I don’t buy his pasta sauce because I care about his bedroom life. And the celebrity that is supposedly the subject of this story doesn’t have a squeaky clean image and hasn’t espoused one in living memory!

Scan the publication really not even be named?

WHat KB said above and thread in general.

Its pretty obvious this couple have never acted as if they are the stereotypical married couple
they have kids and tbh WTF has it got to do with me whether they have an open relationship or not. Its none of my god damn business. I do not have a right to know the sexual proclivities of every person in the UK nor some, just because, they are famous.

Try asking your neighbours or colleagues what they get up to in the bedroom and let me know how that pans out

It’s always a worry when I agree with JY….

Regardless of the super injunction, it appears that a marriage is going to break down due to the actions of one of the partners and that the kids are going to be the victims of the fall out, and that is just very sad.

I can see thru the thin veneer; the 3 way is binners, Flashy & cynic-al

I doubt the marriage will break down as the suggestion is that the marriage is open and they were free to do this

Its really just not our business to know who bangs who and it reflects poorly on us [society]that we think we have the right to disrespect personal privacy to feed our base and prurient desire.

The media often tries to blur the lines between ‘public interest’ and ‘interested public’. If we are truly that desperate to know who various celebs have been shagging, it says more about our failings than theirs.

The trouble with injunctions is that they actually make the story more interesting.