Tweet
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dontp...ion-p6960.html
By Joe Wade
This week the Daily Mail reported how ‘vice girl' (whatever that is) Helen Wood - who'd earned a taste of Z-list celebrity status by kissing and telling on a threesome she'd had with Wayne Rooney and another ‘vice girl' - had been gagged, to prevent her talking about another juicy sounding affair with a ‘world famous' leading man.
The actor in question is married with a child (I have already crossed Tom Cruise off my long list for the obvious reason.) Apart from keeping the information from his spouse it's likely that one of his main motivations would have been to protect a carefully constructed, wholesome onscreen persona, which would be torn asunder if the truth got out.
The Sun also revealed this week how Imogen Thomas (another Z-lister from Big Brother) has been seeing a married footballer who has also managed to conceal his activities from the press with a gagging order, while she is named and shamed as the other woman.
Not only is it slightly unseemly that these sleazy sagas clog up the High Court, it also seems somewhat unfair that some people are able to buy their way out of the public humiliation and some can't. It's difficult to feel sympathy for women who sleep with men for fame or cash but shouldn't the men, especially those building a career on lies, also risk being outed?
The Master of The Rolls, Lord Neuberger concurs stating that the rule of law and democracy were in danger of being undermined if the court orders were granted too often.
We may have reached that point already with at least a ‘dirty 30' of celebrities having obtained super injunctions. Most of them are footballers (surely vying with bankers for the title of Britain's most despised, overpaid and over-privileged profession) who want to conceal their latest trysts from their wives, partners and commercial sponsors. Rooney's affairs have cost him some lucrative endorsements and his Sky TV programme, which has been axed due to his newly acquired image problem.
Speaking of bankers, Fred ‘The Shred' Goodwin, erstwhile head of RBS and now a leper - even among a pariah's profession, obtained a super-injunction to prevent him even being named as a banker.
The existence of the super injunction was revealed by back bench Lib Dem MP John Hemming. Usually the media is forbidden from even reporting that a super-injunction exists but Parliamentary privilege allows MPs to speak in the House of Commons without risk of prosecution. Not only are the rich and randy able to keep their names out of the red tops, the gilded and greedy are attempting to prevent the press from even describing the job they used to do.
Privacy laws now seem to provide too much protection for people who can afford it, although it's not surprising that celebrities want some sort safeguard as the tabloid press is capable of virtually anything in pursuit of a scoop. Door-stepping, long lenses and bin raiding pale in comparison compared to the wholesale phone hacking that was taking place at The News of the World.
Last Friday Rupert Murdoch's News International apologised to eight victims of hacking, including the actor Sienna Miller and former culture secretary Tessa Jowell. Surely the High Court would be better occupied putting high ranking News International executives on trial rather protecting the anonymity of a bunch of immoral footballers?
The illegal activities of some journalists aside, celebrities in the public eye who earn vast amounts of money from their profiles should also accept that their behavior will be under increased scrutiny from a public who's attention they normally crave. Super injunctions are unjust and as wrong as the celebrities who use them.
What do you guys think?
By Joe Wade
This week the Daily Mail reported how ‘vice girl' (whatever that is) Helen Wood - who'd earned a taste of Z-list celebrity status by kissing and telling on a threesome she'd had with Wayne Rooney and another ‘vice girl' - had been gagged, to prevent her talking about another juicy sounding affair with a ‘world famous' leading man.
The actor in question is married with a child (I have already crossed Tom Cruise off my long list for the obvious reason.) Apart from keeping the information from his spouse it's likely that one of his main motivations would have been to protect a carefully constructed, wholesome onscreen persona, which would be torn asunder if the truth got out.
The Sun also revealed this week how Imogen Thomas (another Z-lister from Big Brother) has been seeing a married footballer who has also managed to conceal his activities from the press with a gagging order, while she is named and shamed as the other woman.
Not only is it slightly unseemly that these sleazy sagas clog up the High Court, it also seems somewhat unfair that some people are able to buy their way out of the public humiliation and some can't. It's difficult to feel sympathy for women who sleep with men for fame or cash but shouldn't the men, especially those building a career on lies, also risk being outed?
The Master of The Rolls, Lord Neuberger concurs stating that the rule of law and democracy were in danger of being undermined if the court orders were granted too often.
We may have reached that point already with at least a ‘dirty 30' of celebrities having obtained super injunctions. Most of them are footballers (surely vying with bankers for the title of Britain's most despised, overpaid and over-privileged profession) who want to conceal their latest trysts from their wives, partners and commercial sponsors. Rooney's affairs have cost him some lucrative endorsements and his Sky TV programme, which has been axed due to his newly acquired image problem.
Speaking of bankers, Fred ‘The Shred' Goodwin, erstwhile head of RBS and now a leper - even among a pariah's profession, obtained a super-injunction to prevent him even being named as a banker.
The existence of the super injunction was revealed by back bench Lib Dem MP John Hemming. Usually the media is forbidden from even reporting that a super-injunction exists but Parliamentary privilege allows MPs to speak in the House of Commons without risk of prosecution. Not only are the rich and randy able to keep their names out of the red tops, the gilded and greedy are attempting to prevent the press from even describing the job they used to do.
Privacy laws now seem to provide too much protection for people who can afford it, although it's not surprising that celebrities want some sort safeguard as the tabloid press is capable of virtually anything in pursuit of a scoop. Door-stepping, long lenses and bin raiding pale in comparison compared to the wholesale phone hacking that was taking place at The News of the World.
Last Friday Rupert Murdoch's News International apologised to eight victims of hacking, including the actor Sienna Miller and former culture secretary Tessa Jowell. Surely the High Court would be better occupied putting high ranking News International executives on trial rather protecting the anonymity of a bunch of immoral footballers?
The illegal activities of some journalists aside, celebrities in the public eye who earn vast amounts of money from their profiles should also accept that their behavior will be under increased scrutiny from a public who's attention they normally crave. Super injunctions are unjust and as wrong as the celebrities who use them.
What do you guys think?
Comment