Discussion continues
499214
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 21 May 16 at 15:57
|
I've no interest in the protagonists, but the issue annoys since in theory at least, all websites naming them need to block UK IP addresses. And given the ease of using a proxy server, pretty pointless, and just serves to increase, not diminish interest.
But, if you want a newspaper to ignore a story, you do not deny it, or say anything other than "so, and what's the next question" or similar. A denied issue only serves to increase their interest, not decrease it. Ignore it, and they'll go away. Pretty well rule 1 of dealing with the press whether for a large company or an individual.
|
And five minutes research (if that) has given me the names. What a yawn fest, I'll go back to sleep now!
Dear protagonists.
The cat is out of the bag and trying to stuff it back in will result in two things. Scratches from the cat, and rich very rich lawyers.
Yours sincerely, SP
|
|
As long as there is little to no public money, it's their money to waste.
|
Forgetting who this is or is not about. Lets think hypothetical.
Someone has a fling with a couple. That couple then try to sell the story. Sad that they'd do it but why can't they say what happened? Unless they signed some form of contract with the other person. If it's fact then why can't they say it? Clearly it's true otherwise we'd be talking libel action.
|
|
Whilst the injunction does have a place in the legal system, uses like this are fuel for abolitionists. Very hard to justify a legal process that tries to put a cat back in the bag for residents of a small country while the rest of the world knows the truth and thinks 'what idiots'.
|
But Slidinpillar, if I knew something to be true (because I was involved) but letting others know is against the wishes of someone else, should I be stopped speaking out?
And what if the something I knew was important for say national security... does that make a difference?
Once the cat's out of the bag.... it's too late. Maybe they shouldn't do some things. But then again celebs tend to like to keep small dogs in large handbags.
|
But Slidinpillar (sic) , if I knew something to be true (because I was involved) but letting others know is against the wishes of someone else, should I be stopped speaking out?
Treading rather carefully as incredibly high priced lawyers are coining it from the case in the media, the action of imparting information you know to be not in the interest of at least one party does not say much for your membership of the human race.
In this instance, it's gone far beyond that stage. Perhaps not public knowledge yet, but as the information is widely available, it's quite obvious any legal battles are only in the interests of the lawyers as the war is already lost. Failure to see that is really the crux here.
I'd have supported the initial injunction I think, but not the continuance of it.
|
Thanks.
It's another example of not doing something in the first place. And when found out it's mainly your own fault. One could quote an appropriate song title line but that would be quite wrong too. I guess.
|
Like everyone else I'm not really very interested. I generally believe that celebrities get what they ask for - publicity - and even attempts to suppress it are really just a kind of back-handed way of seeking more.
And it's always fun seeing the law make an ass of itself.
|
If the 'cat is out of the bag' how come the press are still throwing money at their lawyers in hope of publishing?
Were the feline truly free their scoop would have no value. Neither would PJS have anything to gain from pressing on.
Reporting in the media is somewhat disingenuous, suggesting that this is simply about whether the Claimant/Appellant and spouse can be named. In reality it is about continuation of a temporary injunction preventing publication of the whole story pending the full trial of a privacy action later in the year. If the injunction were discharged the Sun on Sunday would spread the whole story over multiple pages, no doubt boosted with quotes, innuendo and pixelated snaps of the activity in question.
That would be a quantum leap in terms of consequence for 'PJS' and his family. Even on the newspapers estimates only around 25% of the population currently know who PJS is; 75% do not. Publication on the Sun, doubtless gleefully repeated by the rest of the media, would turn those proportions on their heads. It would make a permanent injunction meaningless and, were he successful at trial, restrict the remedy to damages. Currently those would be quite limited as current cases do not support 'exemplary' damages or action for profits.
The bottom line for me is that this is about the a media company's presumption it can make money out of people's personal pecadilloes at any cost to others. Quite reasonable for PJS, if he wishes to rely on laws that should protect him, to spend his own/spouses money as he has.
It's also doubtful if the story is complaint with the editors code etc. But a complaint to the press regulator relies on prior publication.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 21 May 16 at 14:40
|
>> this is about the a media company's presumption it can make money out of people's personal pecadilloes at any cost to others.
It isn't a 'presumption', it's an established practice of the tabloid media. It's what they do FFS. Not a métier for a kind, considerate, thoughtful individual.
|
|
As Rebekah Brooks said when editor of the Sun, "Our job is to destroy peoples lives".
|
Neither would PJS have anything to gain from pressing on.
Some people don't accept reality.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Sat 21 May 16 at 15:44
|
>> Some people don't accept reality.
The decision (sort of) covers that point at para 66 of main judgement, Lord Mance, questioning if it would not be less damaging for PJS to 'get it over with'. Concludes that such a case is not made and that it was barely relied on by the newspaper. Interestingly though he explicitly qualifies his comment to 'at this stage'.
|
|
Thanks to Dave for moving enough of old thread into new volume. Much easier to keep the debate going than when most of it is 'orphaned' in the closed volume.
|
|
The judge probably does think that, I'd disagree with it. This individual is famous across the world and other outlets online and otherwise are do name them. The idea that there's some sort of bubble around the UK is daft.
|
If the 'cat is out of the bag' how come the press are still throwing money at their lawyers in hope of publishing?
Were the feline truly free their scoop would have no value. Neither would PJS have anything to gain from pressing on.
And I thought you were well brought up in the ways of the media. As a rule, the press will continue a legal battle until they can say, "After the fearless legal battle of the 'Daily Tripe' we can now bring you the truth". The fact that most of the public either now know, or don't care is irrelevant, puff matters more here.
At some point, a judge will decline to renew the injunction on the grounds the law cannot mend a leaky bucket by making holes illegal. Just that this has not happened yet.
The fact is, had the matter been dealt with sensibly, it would have been tabloid material a few days only whereas you can bet the tabloids will crow about this for a long time - to try and get back some of the money they've spent.
I'm out...
|
The law on this issue is trying to ensure future celebs can spend loadsofmoney and get injunctions.
IF they gave in, then the law on superinjunctions would effectively cease to exist.
So it's nothing about sense or law and all about protecting lawyers' incomes.
And I am being serious.
|
>> puff
>> matters more here.
>>
careful what you say...
As I wrote before, have any laws been broken? Nope.
Has anyone benefitted from having the 'truth' exposed? Nope.
Back to the same old 'is it in the public's interest, or what interests the public'.
Of the two persons involved, one wonders whether person A's wealth-earning possibilities for the product he makes will diminish? Probably not.
And as far as person B's earning potential will take a knock? Well, I suspect B will be shafted from B's best-known gig.
The sprogs involved are already minor celebs in their own right. It is not as if the 'celeb couple' have ever shied away from publicity for the kids, is it? (Unlike some 'celebs' one could name, who have - rightly - shielded the small ones from publicity.)
Go figure.
Last edited by: Ian (Cape Town) on Sat 21 May 16 at 23:20
|
>> Perhaps not public knowledge yet, but as the information is widely available...
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/30/matt-cartoons-may-2016/matt-cartoon-may-22/
|
Twitter and super injunctions (2) - Slidingpillar
