General Chat

having/had affairs but today in paper is another one apparently a very well known actor who has been able, with money, to go to court and squash the possibility of a lover going to the press.

Like a few others before him, he states it would damage his family. Pity they did not think of that before and keep their pants on.

Double edged sword isn't it? He may very well be squeaky clean... who is to know whether the woman is actually a gold-digger out to make money, a spurned fan out for revenge ?

If she is anything at all she would

a, not have become the lover to a married man or
b, if she had chosen to be his lover , keep her mouth firmly shut and have some dignity.

imo lol

I can't say as I'm bothered much either....BUT I am alarmed at the amount of so called *super injunctions* that are available to anyone with enough money to buy them !!!

I'm sure a lot of people have things they'd rather not have published.. which would distress their families..but that sort of privilege is unavailable to them due to the crippling costs ...it's not for the likes of the average man on the street.

Ok...I take on board the antics of Joe Bloggs wouldn't raise as many eyebrows as a premiership footballers would...but super amounts of money shouldn't make a difference imho.

It's not the use of them for protecting famous people that bother me the most...there was one famous case where a super injunction was in place regarding an oil company and their antics...that's where it becomes dangerous i think x

I don't care who's doing who either and I also don't like the fact that this sort of injunction is available to the wealthy - wrong wrong wrong. But I think the papers have brought this on themselves - I naturally feel opposed to censorship but if the papers will insist on reporting dull old tosh on so called celebrities private lives I've no sympathy. If stuff ain't in the public interest, it shouldn't be printed.

I don't know how they get away with calling some of them 'Celebrities' Surely it must be contravening the Trades Description Act.....!

Pah....same old same old,,,,it wont affect me or mine,who gives a rats eyeballs whos got trash on the celebs its only fit paper in an outside lav.}

Totally agree with Rose.

Maybe this woman's allegations have no substance whatsoever. So why shouldn't he recourse to law to shut her and her slimey rag up ?

And if he didn't have money .......................... then she wouldn't be bleating about it !

Well despite my claiming not to care...I do confess to having joined Twitter today to have a nosey at who it was....(had a rough idea and I was right) ...BUT......oh dearie dear....his lawyer is going to be VERY busy suing that many people...they're taking absolutely NO notice of the injunction at all lol.... GOOD. imho.

(and this IS being reported in the papers so it's current news not an advert or owt lol) x

its in the scotish herld to :D

I don't care who he is having it away with...he's playing a blinder this season :-) :-)

If he hadn't scored an own goal by intending to *sue Twitter* I wouldn't have even been interested enough to find out who he is...........but he did and I have! LOL.

I must admit I was surprised that it was him.

Mary

Edit: I must admit that the use of these *super injunctions* make me very uneasy. I agree there is a use for them, but hardly appropriate in these situations to my mind.

Oh well if you drop yer pants you gotta expect a chill wind to blow round yer vitals.......and if you do _*play away *from home then expect its wont stay between the sheets......!

Aww.

I informed No.1 of Mr/Ms X's alleged misdeeds just as No.1 was about to watch the hanging of the medals around the necks this morning (our time).

He was most sadly disillusioned.

Such a bad thing to do to a hero-worshipping young fella.

Well, actually, to a middle-aged fan hoping for good outcomes at that Champions League thing.

;)

It was only the Twitter story on the news that made me want to look on the net and see who it was too lol

'No one gossips about other people’s secret virtues'. (Bertrand Russell).

Couldn't care a flea's armpit :P

It has taken me energy to read this gossip....energy I am sure I should have spent doing something far more worthy.

The irony of it all is..if he hadn't injuncted it and it had just appeared in a tabloid..i'd have rolled my eyes at the headline and thought nothing of it..I probably wouldn't even have remembered WHO exactly it was come the next day!!

A fool and their money are easily parted ;-)

"A fool and their money are easily parted" - absolutely agree Muffy LOL

And only a total idiot with more money than sense tries to sue an outfit like Twitter, over an injunction granted in the English court, when Twitter is based in America and is outside of the English juristriction!! ROFL

Mary

By the time I took to read this thread is time i will never get back.
Don't care who is doing who or not as the case may be. Am nosey
but too lazy to look up and find out who they are.

Emmax :D