I think that's the crux of the matter, and certainly the meat and potatoes of Hisop's splendid HIGNFY rant this week. Once you start making up privacy law on the hoof to protect "footballers and slappers" then that same precedent in law will be applied when there's something we really *do* need to know. Also, I think the existence of Marr's prior article about how journalists should be able to report the facts unencumbered by the rulings of High Court Judges got Hislop's dander up sufficiently to go ahead and challenge the self-same journalist's injunction.
IMHO.

As you say, you feel no different after finding out who 'married actor' is (I couldn't find him/her). And who does Andrew Marr think he is? Would anyone other than his wife, mother & in-laws actually really care that he had an affair? And they would have known anyway.

The premiership footballer's affair with someone off Big Brother - 'and?' is surely the correct response.

...what celebrities do with their genitals, do they? And those that do don't for very long. Superinjunctions are just hubris: "I'm terribly important and interesting and everyone's going to care deeply that I've been hanging out the back of someone I shouldn't have" (little known Buzzcocks b-side there).

I realise that perhaps the likes of Andrew Marr might have felt that he wanted to protect his wife and family from people sneering at them at work and school, but really! Does he not realise that non-slebs who don't have recourse to the good offices of Messrs. Carter Fuck have to just deal with that kind of shite? Affairs are horrible and ugly, and the vast majority of the opprobrium from their fallout always attaches to the cheater, not their wronged other halves. No-one's going to sneer at Mrs Marr: they're just going to think her husband's a bit of an arsehole. And he knows it, too: he was protecting himself, not his family.

I've always rather liked the simian-armed toby jug, myself, but he hasn't exactly covered himself in glory here.

And superinjunctions are just BAD. No-one cares about gossip in the long term. If marriages are to break up, they will do so eventually without the help of the papers. We need papers to be able to report, and superinjunctions represent an unacceptable limit to free speech. Sadly, free speech produces collateral damage, but the alternative is much worse.

I couldnt give a fishes tit about who is shagging who out of watch, however, I do think AM is hypocritical, & I agree with skirky, I think Ian Hyslop ranting on HIGNFY last week was justified.

AM - a sudden attack of proffessional integrity ? Or letting it out now to "balance the books", 8 years after the event, when then sting was drawn from this story years ago, does this entitle him to reclaim the moral high ground?

I like AM, I think his TV is always well presented, although I will think twice before he tries to nail someone who has been caught out, either with his/ her words/ politics or simply his / her genitals.

As for someone striping someone from "Big brother" - well, its not cold fusion is it?

Does it matter?

The line that the public don't give a monkey's about whether A is doing x to C behind B's back is only partly true. Because we all love gossip, there will be those who claim to highest heaven that don't before turning back to their Van morrison biogs and the chapter where VM gets caught in a Spanish hotel room with Julie Christy, a large ham and 3 torredors. What Van was doing with the Pata negra and the star of "Far from the madding crowd" Juan, Julio and Franco may not effect our love of Moondance but we love hearing about it.

We may not obsess about the state of Kerry Katona's underarms or Sheryl Cole's poolside "antics" but we all love gossip all humans do whether it be about the Landlord of our local who use to be a swinger, the slimy pr bloke at work who was found knocking one off in the bogs or indeed what was the peculiar taste that Ivan's gob iron had when he turned up late to a recording session that time.

The double irony is that as a political commentator Andrew Marr's entire career is based on his access to and careful revealing of gossip. Commentators like him rarely discuss policy as in how many councils should get built but mainly gossip sorry report on Tony's relationship with Mandy and whose yacht Osbourne is going to turn up on next.

One other reasons super-injunctions irk so much is there's some goss back there we just can't reach like a husk of corn in a molar. Plus the fact that the media "all" claim to know makes it even more galling.
This love of gossip may not be very noble or high minded but it's very human.

The problem with them is that you don't know how many have been placed and what they are hiding. According to one report I read this weekend there have been approximately 30 in the last month. Now if all they are protecting are somebody who has been shagging around then it's no big deal, but what else gets hidden this way?

...in which there is absolutely no percentage in the red tops, Mail, Express etc, slavering on our behalf over the indiscretions, or cellulite, or weight loss, of celebs, whether Z-list or A-list, because nobody cares.

Meanwhile, Chris G,you should be writing for Shameless...

the Landlord of our local who use be a swinger, the slimy pr bloke at work who was found knocking one off in the bogs or indeed what was the peculiar taste that Ivan's gob iron had when he turned up late to a recording session that time

Celebs may have the cash to hide their indiscretions, but so do big companies.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/13/trafigura-drops-gag-guardian...

I also lean towards Hislop's argument which hinged on the fact that Marr had wrtten a piece putting forward the case for Parliament to decide privacy rather than the courts (and I think its reassuring that the Prime Minister seems to take that view). And, as Hislop said this morning on the radio, Marr's argument that the super-injunction was designed to protect his family and others involved was slightly disingenuous. He took it out to protect himself too. If this story had broken at the time when he was building up his reputation at the BBC he would probably have been finished. As Hislop also says with some credibility, Marr knows that full well.

But this whole episode reveals much about the curtain twitching society we have in this country which leads people like Marr to feel the need to take steps to cover up who he shagged behind his wife's back (as if we really give a toss). The media are obsessed with who's bedding who behind who's back because they know a lot of people like reading about it and having a gossip at the coffee point. A lot of the country still haven't really grown up since the 60s.

It's the thin end of the wedge.

I am quite interested in all the who is shagging whom gossip, I'll be honest, but accept it's not news. But it could be, couldn't it? If David Cameron had had a child out of wedlock after an affair with a work colleague, that IS news and it affects how I and others would see him. Now, Andrew Marr's child may not be, but the point stands.

And another thing I want to rant about while I'm here: 'Footballers AND slappers'. Oh, just the women who are slappers, not the men. They are just men who have money. Who can blame them, nudge, nudge. The birds, however, just slappers. Slightly off the point (and believe me I know a lot of these women are not worth defending), but wanted to rant and none of my friends will listen to me any more. If I put it here, you've no choice.

by admitting that it was him? I'd love to see him up before the Judge: "I don't care if it was your superinjunction, Mr. Marr, it says no one can talk about this and 'no one' includes you. 3 months. Take him down."

Part of me thinks it's fair enough that these famous folk deserve a bit of privacy. Another part of me was mildly curious as to who the footballer and actor were, and now I know, I do admit to thinking a bit less of them. I'd though both were better men than that.

But I can't tell you...

to be dubbed 'Marrgate'? There's already a song

Corrupt a-hole A) beds corrupt a-hole B). Corrupt a-hole B) is so adversely damaged by these vile transgressions that they decide to make their shame public. Corrupt a-hole A) consults with corrupt a-hole C).Corrupt a-hole A) hands over a large sum of wedge to corrupt a-hole C)who arranges with corrupt a-hole D)that should corrupt a-hole A) and corrupt a-hole B)'s night of sordid knee trembling become public knowledge corrupt a-hole A)'s family will be traumatised. A gagging order is granted by corrupt a-hole D) and freedom of speech has another little piece chipped away because the wealthy and morally bankrupt must be protected at all costs.

Can I ger a super injunction served on Katie Price (aka Jordan) to prevent her from telling us who she is shagging now?

David Beckham wants a Super Injunction fitted to his Ferrari

I'm struggling to think how Superinjunctions can be seen as a good thing. True, there's no particular reason why we should know - or even be interested - in the private lives of assorted celebrities. But then, if they're going to misbehave, isn't that part of the risk of their high profile? If they didn't have affairs, or get up to all kinds of hi-jinks they might be ashamed of later, they'd have nothing to worry about.

But as has been said further up the thread, and elsewhere of course, the real problem with Superinjunctions is the potential for very serious malpractice or corruption to be covered up and kept from the public gaze.

Surely anyone daft/blind enough to have slept with AM should be granted a free super injunction for life?

Fred Goodwin.

Private indiscretions by individuals should not be dealt with in the same manner as public malfeasance from companies.

But as long as they still are, then super injunctions are a terrible idea.

Until the law properly distinguishes between the two I'll be on the side of the media here.

are all over Twitter and gossipy forums. Are we now supposed to pretend that we don't know? May not be true of course

1. (CENSORED) Footballer (CENSORED) had an extramarital affair with
Big Brother star Imogen Thomas which lasted for 7 months. (CENSORED) is believed to have now confessed all to his wife but the injunction still remains in place.

2. British comedian/actor (CENSORED) is said to have a keen interest in BDSM and has made several visits to spanking establishments to engage in the spanking/whipping of women. His wife is not believed to know.

3. TV chef (CENSORED) is said to have sexually harassed one female
employee and sacked a male employee for no reason. The man is alleging age discrimination. He is still owed wages by (CENSORED)

4. British actor (CENSORED) paid £195 for the services of prostitute Helen Wood. Helen Wood is the high profile prostitute who received much tabloid coverage last year over her involvement in a sex session with footballer Wayne Rooney. Wood is said to have used a
sex toy on (CENSORED).

5. (CENSORED) presenter (CENSORED) has an injunction against publication of naked intimate photographs of himself and (CENSORED).

6. Two stars of the British TV show (CENSORED), (CENSORED) and (CENSORED) had an affair. Both are married. (CENSORED) is said to have left the show as a result.

---

So people are having rumpy? Yawn.......

The much loved daily mail & the other tabloids will be having a frenzy in the next few days now that this stuff is out in the open.

On twitter, the same stories as DFB has just hinted at have been doing the rounds without names being witheld.

Pure red top gold.

I've heard loads of gossip and names being bandied about. These are apparently not the people in question, but have been named on Twitter. Gabby Logan has had to go public to clear her name.

... that the major twitter source of names is a bunch of students having a laugh.

The 'comedy actor' one I find very hard to believe personally but why should journos and media people have all the fun?

One of the parties in the above has also come out to rubbish it and saying "its just students having a laugh and its not funny". But they are using already named celebs on the net as their source. I really can't see how these injunctions can work n today's world

Ian Hislop and I'm guessing Private Eye have been dropping some rather massive clues recently that tie into these rumours

its that he would take out a super injunction considering his work in the past and those he has worked with. Really delicately tiptoeing round this as you can see

OBVIOUSLY has NOTHING to do with the subject being covered by this thread. I don't know why I'm posting it here, really. Steven C posted it on Twitter earlier today, and I found it very interesting.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1384757/Your-Secret-Life-So...

(I've just tweeted on this subject) that this one

3. TV chef (CENSORED) is said to have sexually harassed one female employee and sacked a male employee for no reason. The man is alleging age discrimination. He is still owed wages by (CENSORED)

is not a super-injuntion but an employment tribunal restricted reporting order, which is designed to protect parties in sexual harassment cases (in this case, specifically the woman making the claim, not the foul mouthed TV chef). It only lasts for a short period and is reviewed periodically by an Employment Judge. Given that the name of the TV Chef is all over Twitter, I'd imagine it will be lifted at its next review and so the individual making the complaint will have her personal life pored over by the tabloids. It's basically akin to naming the victim in a rape case.

Super injunctions stink, in my view, but dragging these highly specialised and restricted rulings into the debate really only helps the case of those who want them.

is how the old saw goes. But the fad for superinjunctions turns that on its head: you're damned before you get the chance to publish.

Whether something is libellous, slanderous, damaging or otherwise detrimental to the interests of blah blah is something to be decided after the fact in open court; not pre-emptively by a judge in chambers on grounds that don't exist because we're not allowed to know about them.

National-security secrets used to be - and I assume still are - protected by D-Notices. What, in effect, is the difference between a superinjunction and a D-Notice? None that I can see.

Of course this is about freedom of speech, and anyone who claims otherwise is being blinkered by the tawdriness of most of the subject matter. Any information at all - and not just the juicy or juice-free details of what some telly chef may or may not have got up to, down to or indeed into in, on or in the vicinity of a jacuzzi in the penthouse of the Darlington Ramada with person or persons or woolly ungulates unknown - can now be put on a par with Trident wiring diagrams.

If you can afford it.

in who had been up to whit-woo with yoo-hoo until I'd read this thread. Now it's driving me mad.

This week's Doctor Who was a bit down on the mark though wasn't it?

...Hugh shagged Hugh?

irrespective of the arguments for and against super-injunctions, the footballer at the centre of this case has done more damage to his reputation and turned himself into a laughing stock as a result of his trying to sue Twitter.

My wife said I hope it's not ****** and sadly it is!

What a tool!

Ryan Adams live later this year with my big brother but I've heard his live shows can be a very hit and miss affair. Should I go? Has anyone ever been to one of Ryan's gigs?

Imogen he's quite good but keep a close watch on your wife

You might find these double entendres entertaining:
http://www.holymoly.com/celebrity-news/manchester-united-annual-player-y...

has been brave\foolish enough to blow the gaff (fnar) then doesn't it make that particular injunction a nonsense?

http://twitpic.com/50z730

maybe his legal bods thought otherwise.

But it's a paper I always quite liked. They could use a sales spike and I hope they get one.

.....when asked when man landed on the moon said.....erm.....1902.
Footballers have appalling music and clothes sense and they don't exactly go for brains either.
I wouldn't mind if she was a looker.