3 2 mins 11 yrs

It is a strange state of ‘affairs’ when only some people are allowed to know what is happening within the lives of some  rich and famous people, with the rest of us outside the fence looking in. Whether you are curious whether a prominent ex-banker has been shagging a female banker or not, you are not allowed to read of his peccadillos in the newspapers because a judge has deemed that his ‘privacy’ is more important the freedoms which we in this country have taken for granted for centuries.

I have always believed in the old-fashioned phrase of ‘putting up or shutting-up’ Why don’t the MPs who know of all these allegations speak out under Parliamentary privilege, ‘out’ all of these people who have persuaded some judge who believes that certain people are ‘better’ than the rest of us, and see what all the fuss is about. Alternatively, why don’t we see all the newspapers who obviously know all the details, print those details, and see if a jury will convict any or all of them?

I know of at least two injunctions which have been breached on the internet, and I intend to write about them on my own site soon. What I would like to see is a ‘grand outing’ via this same Internet, because people should know what their ‘role models’ have been up to behind the privacy granted via the likes of Judge Eady.

“Agreed then? I’ll keep your name secret if you’ll keep mine.”

hat tip to Mac of the Daily Mail

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

3 thoughts on “Can you keep a secret?

  1. I imagine that for someone to avoid injunctions in the future, the obvious way would be to leak a “taster” via an American web site, where it can’t easily be banned. Once this has been done, an injunction would appear to be pointless as all it could do would be to prevent the release of further information. And once names are known, speculation could be worse than the facts!

  2. I totally agree with you, Mike.
    While I actually don’t give two hoots either way about what footballer has been misbehaving with whom, it is not up to these judges to tell us what we can or cannot report on. Who the heck do they think they are?
    May I Clearly Hazard An Empirical Lyric, On Which Everyone Numerates, about the identity of one of the subjects of these superinjuctions? Sorry, that sentence didn’t make much sense did it? I’ve got a migraine. So sue me.

Comments are closed.