Are you a QOTWer? Do you want to start a thread that isn't a direct answer to the current QOTW? Then this place, gentle poster, is your friend.
(, Sun 1 Apr 2001, 1:00)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread
My point is that if Andrew Marr really gave a toss about his family he wouldn't have had an affair. He did, so tough shit for being found out, you big-eared 'Martin Clunes after 6 months at Auchwitz' cunt.
(, Tue 26 Apr 2011, 16:19, 3 replies, latest was 15 years ago)
If NOTW were to report on "coke blown up rectums" about you because it is both interesting and funny, I would argue that it is not in the public interest because it has fuck all to do with how you hold yourself out as a person or professionally.
Does the argument go "he shouldn't have blown coke...."
(, Tue 26 Apr 2011, 16:23, Reply)
I admitted in a public forum that I have enjoyed the blowing of cocaine up my 'Paul Gadd' and therefore I cannot really deny it, it's a fact so it's rather my tough shit'. If I was a famous television personality I would say that it was even tougher shit.
I am guessing that Andrew Marr has discussed at length on television and in print the 'private life revelations' about many politicians, much of which isn't really to the detriment of their professional abilities, without saying 'steady on, let's leave them be' - he has therefore 'lived by the sword' so to speak.
(, Tue 26 Apr 2011, 16:28, Reply)
YOU disclosed it. It was your decision.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with what you say but because only public figures use this legislation it looks like the thin edge of the wedge.
When a proper whistleblower with something important to say is stopped from doing so by this legislation it will be because the case law has been developed to that point by whingeing famous wankers.
That said, famous or not, the law is the law. (help me here 'swipe).
(, Tue 26 Apr 2011, 16:32, Reply)
then whoever he was shagging has every right to talk about it if she wants.
Perhaps the person doing the blowing up Monty's arse didn't want it known?
(, Tue 26 Apr 2011, 16:34, Reply)
As Andrew Marr's wife does.
(, Tue 26 Apr 2011, 16:35, Reply)
and I'm not so sure she does have that right.
(, Tue 26 Apr 2011, 16:36, Reply)
Perhaps for that reason, we are not privvy to the pleading for the injunction.
(, Tue 26 Apr 2011, 16:37, Reply)
regarding pleading, injunctions and the privvy (i.e. lavatory)
(, Tue 26 Apr 2011, 16:39, Reply)
because, as with the whole MPs expenses revelations, once there is actually a legitamate public interest case, you can't have a super injunction.
BUT, the trouble with the existance of them at all is that people with lots of money (Trafigura) can tie up the case in protracted legal wrangling even when they are always going to lose.
So my argument is that they are not a good thing.
(, Tue 26 Apr 2011, 16:36, Reply)
I don't think they are GOOD. I think one is entitled to privacy where no public interest exists.
(, Tue 26 Apr 2011, 16:38, Reply)
and the law already covers that, so if someone blows your privacy with no public interest you can get an injunction, or just take them to the cleaners afterwards.
But the Trafigura case didn't come to light for years, and only after an MP mentioned it in the westminster using his commons priviledge
(, Tue 26 Apr 2011, 16:42, Reply)
And I don't mean valid, just enforceable.
(, Tue 26 Apr 2011, 16:44, Reply)
they got away with having a super injunction which prevented papers publishing that they have caused a fucking awful spill and the only reason it came out was because an MP got involved. There was clearly a public interest.
This is a good case to demonstrate the dangers of the existence of super injunctions.
(, Tue 26 Apr 2011, 16:47, Reply)
The story itself clearly had public interest so while the specifics of the actual fault were being worked out the papers could have been reporting that a spill happened, but that the person whose fault it was had not been determined. There was no need to have a super injunction. The fact that they exist is dangerous as it gives the power to the people who have lots of money, it's got fuck all to do with "general rights to privacy".
(, Tue 26 Apr 2011, 16:57, Reply)
'Breaking the law, breaking the law' dressed as San Franciscan homosexual motorcyclists.
(as you can see, I don't really have a sensible argument)
(, Tue 26 Apr 2011, 16:36, Reply)
I'd vote for you.
And want to read about the lurid details of your cocaine fuelled sex life.
(, Tue 26 Apr 2011, 16:39, Reply)
What has a rent boy in every bite?
(, Tue 26 Apr 2011, 16:42, Reply)
if a judge doesn't want to find for it, he will find a reason not to...
(, Tue 26 Apr 2011, 16:42, Reply)
(, Tue 26 Apr 2011, 16:43, Reply)
he who stands at the peak of the metaphorical Everest of cool and awesome.
(, Tue 26 Apr 2011, 16:35, Reply)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread