Thracian Posted 26 April 2011 Posted 26 April 2011 http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20110426/tuk-bbc-s-marr-why-i-sought-gag-order-6323e80.html
Finnegan Posted 26 April 2011 Posted 26 April 2011 It's sad that people need an injunction to keep their home life out of the news anyway.
davieG Posted 26 April 2011 Posted 26 April 2011 It's sad that people need an injunction to keep their home life out of the news anyway. Agree it's sad that people seem to get pleasure reading about it. But it is hypocritical of him.
Finnegan Posted 26 April 2011 Posted 26 April 2011 Wasn't really saying otherwise. Just don't think there's any winners here.
Webbo Posted 26 April 2011 Posted 26 April 2011 If a woman has a relationship with a man, or vice versa, is it right that one person in that relationship should be able to use the weight of the law to stop the other person talking about it. Apparently in one of these cases a pair of TV presenters had an affair and as a result the woman has lost her job but the man has not. Because of this injunction the papers and public at large are not allowed to discuss the rights and wrongs of this.
FoxyPV Posted 26 April 2011 Posted 26 April 2011 ****ing hell - Andrew Marr managed to bed TWO women. What's the world coming to?!
davieG Posted 26 April 2011 Posted 26 April 2011 Wasn't really saying otherwise. Just don't think there's any winners here. Oh I know you weren't.
Benji Posted 26 April 2011 Posted 26 April 2011 Mr J Eady's law. Imagine the government may actually legislate now with the way this "privacy" law has escalated out of control.
Fox1651 Posted 26 April 2011 Posted 26 April 2011 we live in a multi-level society which makes the whole kiss and tell thing like anything else, the rich will get away with it
Steven Posted 26 April 2011 Posted 26 April 2011 ****ing hell - Andrew Marr managed to bed TWO women. What's the world coming to?! You might be surprised what can happen if you ask nicely.
ajthefox Posted 26 April 2011 Posted 26 April 2011 It's quite right that he wants privacy because he and everybody else deserves it but that's not how it works with the way society is now and he knows that the hypocritical so and so. Had to laugh at FoxyPV's comment
Guest ttfn Posted 17 May 2011 Posted 17 May 2011 Latest news in this injunction business appears to be that lawyers are petitioning judges for the right to search journos' emails to see if they've been leaking the story. This is getting beyond a joke now.
Fosse Boy Posted 17 May 2011 Posted 17 May 2011 Good thing Mosley didn't get his way. That would've pretty much killed regional journalism off forever if he had.
Jon the Hat Posted 18 May 2011 Posted 18 May 2011 What a joke this is. I believe the theory is that the right to family life is prejudiced by negative stories. Which is clearly nonsense, it is the actions of those in question who did that. Serious misjudgements by the courts in my view, rather like saying it was the police who were responsible for someone going to jail, not the person who committed a crime in the first place.
hairy Posted 18 May 2011 Posted 18 May 2011 The real stupid thing is that the injunction only covers the UK. The Spanish papers have been printing stuff about Giggs and that bird from Big Brother since Barca and Manure qualified for the cup final. It appears the injunction was granted because of a sting operation by the Sun and that bird but then Giggs really shouldn't dip his wick if he cared about his family that much.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.