***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 3 *****
==============================================================
Continuing discussion
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 21 May 16 at 16:01
|
|
Not redacted, or subject to a C4P superinjunction?
|
|
Locked by a lawyer : we know what that means :-)
|
Scarecrow festival in next village this weekend. One of them was dressed in MUFC kit but anonymised by a box over his head labelled 'super injunction'.
Well it gave me a giggle.
|
Looks as though this issue is coming back to boil. One half of a famous media couple stated to be in an open relationship participated in a threesome. Two of the three sold their story to the Sun. Subject of story seeks restraining injunction on grounds of his family life.
He lost in the High Court but won in Court of Appeal. Interestingly, Guardian's Roy Greenslade is holding his nose and supporting the press.
www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/apr/07/press-sex-lives-sun-on-sunday-daily-mail
Presumably it will now go to Supreme Court. Whatever rights/wrongs the reality is that anyone who wants to know the name involved can find it out, although that's still perhaps a better outcome for claimant than the full five pages stuff in Sun would be.
|
And a piece by Chris Jeffrey, a man the press all but accused of murder, on some of the same ground. Cameron and his Ministers seem to be backsliding on commitments given during the hacking crisis and re Leveson.
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/06/david-cameron-press-intrusion-leveson-promises
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 7 Apr 16 at 12:37
|
>>Looks as though this issue is coming back to boi..........
I doubt anybody would have cared very much if they hadn't stirred it all up with the injunction. hearing that there was an injunction made me interested, finding out who was involved cured me of that interest.
|
>> I doubt anybody would have cared very much if they hadn't stirred it all up
>> with the injunction. hearing that there was an injunction made me interested, finding out who
>> was involved cured me of that interest.
Obviously true that folks like you or me, who don't read the Sun and have the curiosity and knowledge to find the names, can do so. We're a small number though.
From point of view of 'PJS' that's a magnitude of difference to it being headlined on page 1 of Sun on Sunday with full details cont on pages 2-7. And of course the article would appear for years whenever a search on his or his wife's name was done. In so far as it's about his kids it also gives the school a fairly big stick with any attempts to raise the subject in classroom or playground
Sorry, I edited out PJS because I thought it might be contentious but after a read-around realised it wasn't, so back now... smokie
Last edited by: smokie on Thu 7 Apr 16 at 14:06
|
It would certainly be more "in your face" on day 1 when it was in every tabloid, but I think it'd die away pretty quickly.
It'd die away even more quickly if the "injured party" just said "Yeah, I know about it, it happens a lot, what's your point?". It would go away immediately. Its only fun for the tabloid lookers while they think they've "caught" someone. As soon as that person seems not to care, then they lose interest.
I don't know who here is aware of the players in this game, but if you don't and then found out I can virtually guarantee you would lose all interest. Its just not interesting and neither are they.
Whereas now, every time in the future when the subject of injunctions comes up, a search will bring them up.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 7 Apr 16 at 14:31
|
>>
>> I don't know who here is aware of the players in this game, but if
>> you don't and then found out I can virtually guarantee you would lose all interest.
Precisely.
We've seen a raft of footballers caught with their wicks wet, a bunch of 'celebs' caught offside, and all the rest.
Does it have any bearing on you and me? Nope.
Politicians and business types, though, deserve to be 'outted', as they are answerable to Joe Taxpayer or shareholders. Think The Crystal Methodist at the co-op.
As are sanctimonious types, who yabber on about 'family' - like the well known footballer who was more concerned about losing his lucrative 'Father of the Year' award and sponsorship...
Last edited by: Ian (Cape Town) on Thu 7 Apr 16 at 14:41
|
>> It would certainly be more "in your face" on day 1 when it was in
>> every tabloid, but I think it'd die away pretty quickly.
I simply don't think that's the case. I'll give an ancient example; Mick Jagger's alleged consumption of a Mars Bar which was being firmly held by Marrianne Faithful. Anybody of my generation and older knows exactly what I mean by that. So does my son.
And that's stuff long pre-dating the internet. Searching anything on Ryan Giggs, or any of the other celebs who's indiscretions have made the red tops will turn up the whole seedy story for years ahead.
The only people routinely searching injunctions are those with a personal or professional interest in the law.
As Ian implies there'd be more respect for the media if they were making hay about politicians real misdeeds and not where sportsmen's willies are going.
|
We're talking about it, and without the injunction I bet we wouldn't be.
Put "celebrity injunction" into Google and at least the first 4 pages are this case, including their names.
Etc. etc. Still, who knows for sure. The whole injunction thing over extra marital affairs between consenting adults who have never held themselves up as moral guardians of anything seems pointless.
As for the media, it is neither respect nor lack of it for them, they simply print what will sell newspapers. The fault, if there is any, lies with their readership.
|
Excerpt from the Telegraph....
"Mr Stephens said PJS and YMA had been left vulnerable by a "short-sighted" legal approach.
Lawyers should have foreseen their clients' names were likely to emerge in the US , he added.
"That was a massive mistake," said Mr Stephens.
"The lawyers effectively painted targets on the backs of these two individuals.
"They haven't gone to the trouble of getting the orders organised to be applicable in all likely jurisdictions where the story was likely to take off. It was a very short-sighted view.
"It was eminently foreseeable that it was going to take off in other countries or on social media.
"As in the case of Ryan Giggs the lawyers made a disaster out of a crisis."
NB: These initials also have no connection to their real initials.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 7 Apr 16 at 15:10
|
>> Excerpt from the Telegraph....
>>
>> Mr Stephens said PJS and YMA had been left vulnerable by a "short-sighted" legal
>> approach.
Mark Stephens isn't presenting a detached opinion, he's been an outspoken opponent of privacy injunctions for some years. He'd be the obvious media friendly go to person for some commentary as to why the Court of Appeal has got this wrong. It would be equally possible to get Hugh Tomlinson QC (though he might be constrained by acting for 'PJS') or other folks to put the opposite view.
It's also quite interesting to compare the sudden publicity for this case/judgement with the link I posted above to Chris Jefferies plea for government to follow up commitments given immediately post the phone hacking cases.
There's more than a suggestion that, without Nick Clegg and current news to influence, Cameron's administration would be happy to abandon sections in coalition era legislation that gave teeth to Leveson's recommendations. And further, they'd abandon Leveson (2) which looked at potentially corrupt press/police relationships.
'Fleet Street' would, once again, escape from drinking at the last chance saloon while DC keeps his comfy accommodation with Murdoch and other press barons.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 7 Apr 16 at 20:32
|
>> >>>>
>> 'Fleet Street' would, once again, escape from drinking at the last chance saloon while DC
>> keeps his comfy accommodation with Murdoch and other press barons.
>>
>>
While I sympathise with those whose sex lives are outed all over the front pages, I can't help feeling that any legislation to prevent the press from running stories would be misused by the great and good to cover up hypocrisy and other misdeeds.
|
>Mark Stephens isn't presenting a detached opinion
Not everybody is an objective and open minded as you are on such subjects. Some people are blinded by their own beliefs and dogmatic in their support or criticism simply depending upon which side of a political fence people sit as their criteria for decision.
|
>> Not everybody is an objective and open minded as you are on such subjects. Some
>> people are blinded by their own beliefs and dogmatic in their support or criticism simply
>> depending upon which side of a political fence people sit as their criteria for decision.
Is that the best you can do?
I'm not pretending to be independent on this stuff. On the contrary, I prefer the eg French or German European ideas to the US publish and be damned (if you can afford the damning) approach.
|
>> Is that the best you can do?
No, just the best that was required.
|
>>Put "celebrity injunction" into Google and at least the first 4 pages are this case, including their names.
lots of talk about it but no actual names that I can see?
|
|
but just put it into twitter and its now very clear.
|
|
Well I got two completely different sets so I'm none the wiser. Not that I care really, it's only this thread which has even made me aware of it!!
|
|
The whole situation is quite ridiculous. The UK legal system needs to wake up to the digital World.
|
From the Sun -
"The multi-millionaire public figure and his spouse regularly court publicity using their children".
That's a major clue.
|
>> From the Sun -
>>
>> "The multi-millionaire public figure and his spouse regularly court publicity using their children".
>>
>> That's a major clue.
they all do that
|
A quick search reveals at least 33 celebs who have indulged in threesomes, ranging from Tiger Woods to JFK, with Joan Collins along the way.
I didn't know I was in such good company.
|
|
You had a 3some with Tiger and JFK?
|
>> You had a 3some with Tiger and JFK?
Hardly, one died before the other was born. Joan Collins was in my dreams.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 7 Apr 16 at 21:26
|
>Hardly, one died before the other was born.
Doesn't stop some folks.
|
>> >Hardly, one died before the other was born.
>>
>> Doesn't stop some folks.
I dont live in Basingstoke.
|
>I dont live in Basingstoke.
Did you know that there are rumours that "Deliverance" was actually filmed around Basingstoke?
|
>> >I dont live in Basingstoke.
>>
>> Did you know that there are rumours that "Deliverance" was actually filmed around Basingstoke?
Rumour? I actually bumped into Banjo Billy Redden in Basingstoke Weatherspoons.
|
>> That was you?!
Actually made me laugh out loud.
|
Some, perhaps many, media organisations respond to injunctions by printing / publishing as many different stories as they can about the subject person.
These are stories unconnected with the specific matter of interest, but cause the celebrity to move up the popularity and trending rankings in various search engines.
Consequently if you're ever searching for such a thing, and in the middle of your search appears a random and seemingly unconnected story about a celebrity, you've probably just answered your own question.
|
|
Trying to get us in trouble Bobby??
Last edited by: smokie on Fri 8 Apr 16 at 07:52
|
Sorry, not quite grasping your point.
But as I am sure you know the art of searching is the clues you give.
"Super injunction" might get you nothing relevant. "John Smith" might get you nothing relevant. But "super injunction john smith" may get you a page full.
A search engine might even think "john smith" is relevant even though it is itself hiding all the "john smith injunction" links.
A bit of interpretation sometimes goes a long way.
I don't feel like I'm making sense, but I know what I'm trying to say.
|
>> Trying to get us in trouble Bobby??
Oh, that's me being slow then. Sorry I didn't appreciate it at the time.
Doh!
|
>> As Ian implies there'd be more respect for the media if they were making hay
>> about politicians real misdeeds and not where sportsmen's willies are going.
>>
Boils down to the old adage - is it in the public interest, or is it something which interests the public?
As long as 'celeb' X is not breaking any laws, no matter how sordid X's behaviour may seem to some, then it isn't news, in my book.
So, celeb rugby chap is gay. Well known fact. But not news.
Celeb rugby chap B takes drugs. illegal behaviour, therefore news.
However, when there is a case where a public figure who professes his beliefs, then acts in an opposite manner - ie that 'Father of the Year' Footballer who was playing the field; or an anti-gay ranter politician who has a penchant for rentboys, then it IS published.
|
|
Took me about half-a-minute to find out the celebrity's name via Google.....:-)
|
For those who manage to find anything through Google or any other means, please don't bother repeating it here, or write witty (or less witty) clues. I don't want to spend all my day hiding and deleting.
It's an injunction to prevent publication, and I don't think we'd want this site or anyone connected with it to be the ones to find out the consequences of breaking it.
|
Smokes, the whole thing is a farce.
As much as I respect your trying hard to complyn to UK law, it just shows what a complete joke this has become, and how much the lawyers are coining on this entire gig.
Last edited by: Ian (Cape Town) on Fri 8 Apr 16 at 15:15
|
|
Farce it may be, but as long as the rest of the internet is sticking to it then we should too. When the dailies feel safe enough publish the details then it's a free for all...
|
Sorry.
(no, I won't continue)
As a journo, I follow this case, and decide that one must understand the laws of each nation.
Back in the 70s, we had gagging orders here... and horrid ones at that. But the international press could report stuff which locally could not be reported.
It seems that despite the Leveson stuff, and the Giggs exposure, some stuffy judges decide what is - or not - in the public interest. And in this case, there is a very large public interest, in my professional opinion.
I'd say some more, regarding certain implicated chap's roles 'in society'... but that would be going too far.
|
>> Smokes, the whole thing is a farce.
>> As much as I respect your trying hard to complyn to UK law, it just
>> shows what a complete joke this has become, and how much the lawyers are coining on this entire gig.
As it only relates to the UK media has it made news in south Africa?
|
>> As it only relates to the UK media has it made news in south Africa?
>>
Naaah - we have enough on our plates with dodgy politicians to worry about a couple of *deleted*.
I'm sure the Sunday papers will have the story.
|
>>As it only relates to the UK media has it made news in south Africa?
In truth the actual story has only made the National Enquirer, as far as I can work out. The international news all over the place is about the injunction with the actual story as only background.
However, in describing the circumstances Idiot #1 and Idiots #2 & #3 are freely named.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sat 9 Apr 16 at 14:29
|
>>please don't bother repeating it here, or write witty (or less witty) clues.>>
As a retired journalist, that's exactly why I didn't do just that.....:-)
But agree with others that the whole subject is a joke when the answer is freely available everywhere bar the UK legally, in an era where communications technology has never been so freely available and so easy to use.
|
As an aside, there's a bunch of chaps who have been heavily implicated in financing our president, and doing a shedload of dodgy deals, all with (seemingly) presidential approval.
They have been named all over the local press.
In fact, recently, they sued a local publication for publishing a syndicated article (Financial Times/Bloomberg) about their dodginess.
Local publication gives it the Pressdram v Arkell defence, and suggests theyb try that in the London courts against FT, and see how far you got...
|
Blimey, I'd never have guessed it was them!
Though the bit about showing off the kids makes sense now.
|
>> Blimey, I'd never have guessed it was them!
Pretty much my reaction too. A few other thoughts as well but I won't offer them as committing to print would potentially facilitate 'jigsaw' identification.
|
|
The betting round here was that it was Posh & Becks, that's what I initially thought too.
|
|
I too thought it was P & B at one point, until I found out it was actually PJS & YMA.
|
|
I so don't care who it is or what it is they are supposed to have done.
|
And if you knew who they were and what they had done, you would wonder why on earth anybody would care.
There is so much talk in the Wail and others about how the rest of the world is feasting on this exciting news while the poor Brit is starved. The rest of the world does not give a flying crap about the couple or their activities. I guess they were newsworthy once, although I'm not sure this would ever have raised much interest. But now, not even my Grandmother would care.
The injunction is interesting to a different set of people but the scandal? Well it isn't one.
|
>> >>
>> The injunction is interesting to a different set of people but the scandal? Well it
>> isn't one.
>>
The injunction ensured that a non story which would have been forgotten by the end of the day it appeared became a major talking point. They'd have been better served letting it come out and blowing away (Cue loads of smutty innuendo).
|
This could be a 21st Century version of Cluedo...
It was Posh in the kitchen with an armadillo
It was Simon Cowell in the pantry with some swarfega
It was Kim Kardashian in the parlour with a large block of stilton cheese and a trouser press.
(By the way, none of these have any relevance to the matter at hand)
|
|
Okay, cheers to both of you.
|
>> It was Simon Cowell in the pantry with some swarfega
I would not spend 30 minutes inside your imagination!! Weird-ass.
|
|
Similarly un-newsworthy is the media ordure storm about the Archbip of Cantaur's parentage. Who gives a flying fish?
Last edited by: Roger. on Sun 10 Apr 16 at 14:27
|
I think it is sad for the Archbishop of Cantebury
What his mother did was a one night stand before she got married.
|
>> Similarly un-newsworthy is the media ordure storm about the Archbip of Cantaur's parentage
It's pretty clear you've never been a newsman Roger. What hack could possibly resist the headline "Archbishop of Canterbury is a b*****d - official!"?
Un-newsworthy indeed! As one would expect the archbish is taking it in his stride, with a smile hardly grim at all... You don't become a prince of the church by being some sort of wimp.
|
I see that the 'main event' celebrity couple have been featured in the [deleted] as having been all lovey-dovey at [deleted] by [deleted] that screamed the loudest about the whole episode..
The hypocrisy scares me.
|
>> What hack could possibly resist the
>> headline "Archbishop of Canterbury is a b*****d - official!"?
>>
well, given that Our Lord and Saviour Jesus was the product of an extramarital (and extraordinary) bonking, who can complain?
"I am the son of Joseph of Aramethea... or am I? My father could have been Biggus Dickus!"
|
>> well, given that Our Lord and Saviour Jesus was the product of an extramarital (and
>> extraordinary) bonking, who can complain?
>>
>> "I am the son of Joseph of Aramethea... or am I? My father could have
>> been Biggus Dickus!"
>>
Did they have turkey basters in ¾ BC ?
|
|
I see the couple involved have been named by someone in the comments section of an article in a British newspaper. I can't obviously name the paper in question, but it can't be long before their mods pick it up and delete it.
|
Is there anyone in Britain who doesn't know who it is by now?
A mountain has been made out of a molehill.
Had this injunction not happened, most folk would have written it off as tabloid gossip, especially given the source.
|
>> Is there anyone in Britain who doesn't know who it is by now?
>>
I don't know
But then I don't really give a ***** who it is and what they did
and I am sure a lot of people are similarly disinterested
|
The persons are named on the website of a political blogger, who is Irish, on servers located in the USA!
|
Court has decided injunction can be lifted but ban on naming remains in force until possible appeal has been decided.
www.theguardian.com/media/2016/apr/18/court-of-appeal-celebrity-threesome-injunction
|
More readable, but the same thing...
www.bbc.com/news/uk-36073383
Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 18 Apr 16 at 17:57
|
Any judiciary which allows an injunction on this in England - but none was sought in Scotland - is living in the 19th century.
Forget twitter, etc.. it's plain dumb.
|
|
Supreme Court is hearing application for leave to appeal this morning.
|
>> Supreme Court is hearing application for leave to appeal this morning.
>>
One wonders why. After all, anyone who really cares already knows who is who.
Or is this a pre-empting in case other raucous details come out later?
|
|
Given those involved, I think a gagging order is completely unnecessary... After all, gagging is surely an occupational hazard :p
|
>> Given those involved, I think a gagging order is completely unnecessary... After all, gagging is
>> surely an occupational hazard :p
>>
Don't drag us down to your private hell.
|
>> >>
>> Don't drag us down to your private hell.
>>
Hell? Hardly... The whole things a joke... Unlike, I fear, absent any form of smiley, your comment ;)
|
>> >> >>
>> >> Don't drag us down to your private hell.
>> >>
>>
>> Hell? Hardly... The whole things a joke... Unlike, I fear, absent any form of smiley,
>> your comment ;)
>>
Quote from Dragnet, Peter! And meant to be amusing.
anyway - have they named the 'celebrity couple' yet?
|
>> anyway - have they named the 'celebrity couple' yet?
No. Supreme Court heard case yesterday. Judgement was reserved. Injunction still in place pending outcome.
|
There is an excellent front page picture on the Telegraph today.
|
|
The online version? I found one of Boris waist deep in a pond which made me smile.
|
>> There is an excellent front page picture on the Telegraph today.
>>
>>
Certainly a major clue.
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Thu 5 May 16 at 15:46
|
Supreme Court allows appeal. Injunction remains in place pending trial of the main action:
www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0080-press-summary.pdf
|
|
Very helpful. The whole thing seems crazy, unless you're a qc coining it in.
|
The Scots are free to print it as are the Irish. And the rest of the world.
It is obvious the Supreme Court is living - not in the last century - but in the 19th century..
|
I suppose the court is doing what it does according to its rules and precedents.
Waste of resources though.
The news of the decision was on the wireless while I was at the dentist this morning, unable to take part in the conversation owing to my cake hole being wedged open. Dentist to nurse "It's [names famous person] isn't it?". Nurse to dentist "Yeah".
|
|
Are the Jock papers printing the name/s? If I googled the Daily record, say, would I see the name/s and say 'Ooh!', (or in my case more likely 'whom?')
|
Well, I have followed my own suggestion, and lots of people are named in the Daily Record online and as I suspected, they were all people whom I either didn't know, or didn't want to know, or didn't care about.
Sigh, I wish I hadn't bothered.
|
>> Sigh, I wish I hadn't bothered.
>>
I didn't, because I'm not interested or bothered. It amazes me that anyone actually cares what "celebrities" get up to.
|
I'm not bothered or sure I know who it is either. Or care. But some reporting said it was a celebrity married couple with two young children. The two partners have been referred to as male I think, as in PJS and YMA were referred to as 'he'.
So that's possibly narrowing it down to some famous/semi-famous celebrity male couple with two adopted children.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Thu 19 May 16 at 18:50
|
I've removed your post Roger, and hidden the replies.
There is an injunction banning naming you know. it applies to us too.
Smokie
Last edited by: smokie on Thu 19 May 16 at 23:47
|
>> I've removed your post Roger, and hidden the replies.
>>
>> There is an injunction banning naming you know. it applies to us too.
>>
>> Smokie
>>
>>
"Innocent face" - 'twas only a common or garden verb used, not a noun,or even a Proper noun :-)
I DO take your point, though :-(
|
>> So that's possibly narrowing it down to some famous/semi-famous celebrity male couple with two adopted
>> children
An excellent example of how jigsaw identification works.
|
>> An excellent example of how jigsaw identification works.
>>
It's well past that now and has been for a while.
|
I do get what's going on with the posts which Ian and others are putting up. I realise it wouldn't bother some of you if I got sent to the slammer for a bit but I have a holiday coming up and would prefer not to be, and I would be sharing a cell with Dave and Rob, what could be worse? :-)
So please quit the hints and innuendos at the identity of the couple until the mainstream press out them. And I realise what is happening with your post today Ian. Interesting really... but their article had no context whereas by linking it in this thread you gave it some.
I'm seeking some legal advice from our resident legal eagle as to whether I am being over-cautious. I think I'm not.
Last edited by: smokie on Fri 20 May 16 at 08:06
|
>>I'm seeking some legal advice from our resident legal eagle as to whether I am being over-cautious. I think I'm not.
I don't think so either - in Scotland we can print it, and talk about it to others but we cannot put it on the web as that can fall foul of English law where the web is visible in England.
The 'papers here can print it but not put it on their England-visible webpages.
Rob's post above probably crosses the line of identifiability (is that a word?)
|
|
In the UK press there is mention of he, his etc for 'PJS' and 'YMA'.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Fri 20 May 16 at 09:49
|
|
Anyone on her use TripAdvisor? I ask because they are quick to delete inappropriate posts. Except there's some on there clearly naming the two alleged celebrities... surely they are in breach of the court order?
|
|
I would think they are, but plenty of others will be. I'm on a couple of forums that has pretty much named them.
|
|
In my opinion, it's dangerous to even have such a thread as this. Someone could post the names and the site owners are in breach of a court order aren't they? It could be hard to trace the person who submitted the post.
|
We know where you live :-)
IMO there's no harm having a thread discussing the rights and wrongs of super-injunctions but I'd be surprised anyway if we don't all (think we) know who it is by now, so really there is no kudos in cunningly disguising it in plain view. I doubt many are that impressed by that... :-)
We are fortunate that most people are reasonably self-moderating, as there is no-one here full time to remove undesirable stuff and there maybe a lag in responding to a Reported post.
|
>> I'd be surprised anyway if we don't all (think we) know who it is by now
A few people in the office here didn't know who they were, and were somewhat surprised when I told them. They weren't aware things like Facebook, Twitter, and even a simple Google search could reveal such things.
|
>> We know where you live :-)
Someone could create a new Google email address, create an account here and post using that. How would you know who it was? One could even fire up a brand new VM from which to post and do it using an Internet connection tethered to a mobile phone - hence no way of easily tracing it because all mobiles on a given mobile network providers network share a NAT'd IP address.
There'd be nothing this site could do to trace them. Not easily.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Fri 20 May 16 at 10:57
|
It was a joke, hence the smiley :-)
:-) <<< smiley
|
|
I know but I was pointing out someone could post anonymously on any forum and be very difficult to find. Using a clean install of an OS (or a LiveCD booted) in a VM connected to a mobile hotspot would be hard to locate. Especially as the MAC address of the Ethernet card would be generated on the fly and be 'unique'.
|
|
Dangerous? As above its all over the Internet, I don't think anyone has been sued or whatever over it?
Last edited by: sooty123 on Fri 20 May 16 at 10:38
|
>> Dangerous? As above its all over the Internet, I don't think anyone has been sued
>> or whatever over it?
I know it's not the same thing but not completely dissimilar:
www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-north-east-wales-20207408
|
Okie dokie.
My (albeit) deleted post shows what a farce this whole thing is... an absolute non-newsworthy item posing as main-item-on-website news, just to cock a snook at the judges.
Same as the Telegraph posting above, where the person makes quarter of the front page for no apparent reason.
|
|
One of the country's best selling daily newspapers has done everything just short of naming them in this mornings edition. A scan of the headlines in your local newsagents will leave no one in any doubt as to who the couple are.
|
Twitter and super injunctions (2) - Zero
