How British journalists talk about people they're not allowed to talk about


#1

[Read the post]


#2

I don’t know how the English and Welsh put up with these laws. The phone hacking scandal was abhorrent, but for all our problems America is not significantly worse for having less stringent libel laws. (Actually, could you imagine how the media would handle Trump if we did? There’s the stuff of nightmares. )


#3

So . . . some wealthy couple had a threesome with Barbara Streisand?


#4

In the news
Image for the news result
Google is now removing links identifying the super injunction couple in the UK
The Drum‎ - 9 hours ago
Google is reportedly removing links to sites that identify the super injunction celebrities.

This is what you get when you Google “super-injunction”, they are busy little beavers.


#5

Had there not been an injunction on this story I couldn’t have cared less.

I read this article, and inevitably I went and found out who it was about.

I don’t actually care any more now either, to be honest.


#6

After a bit of googling and finding a UK blog called Guido Fawkes, I discovered this regards a headline I saw in the supermarket line last week (and tried to ignore). A certain British singer and his husband had a bit of a scandal, but it can’t be published in the UK. I am for people’s bedrooms being private places, and I really couldn’t care less about what he and his husband are up to. However, having your private life be tabloid fodder is the price of celebrity. Deal with it or choose to not become famous in the first place (nor quite as wealthy). I understand their ‘protecting their kids’ argument, but maybe not doing things in the first place that will land you in the papers is a better way to protect your kids.


#7

Hilariously all my google results went to UK news sources.

Well I find it hilarious at least.

That might almost be worth reading popbitch again for. It’s chock full of horse racing when I see I these days. And that’s not a code term, I mean the actual racing of horses and betting on the results.


#8

Why is everyone not naming them? This is a non-UK news site surely?


#9

I’m just going to change my name to Hugh Cannotbenamedforlegalreasons, thus avoiding the bother of taking out an injunction when the News of the World decides to spill the details of my torrid, tawdry sex life.


#10

Oh, they would go right around it.

More Violence at Short-Fingered Vulgarian Rally


#11

Wouldn’t it have been cool if Vinny Testaverde had changed his first name to Benny while he played with the Jets?


#12

You don’t quite have our appalling media. If you had the Daily Mail, the Telegraph, the Daily Express and the Sun, US billionaires would quickly be buying a superinjunction law at federal level.

This week the Daily Telegraph accused the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, of taking £3 million from the State. That’s actually his official salary and pension over the time he’s been in Parliament. And that’s just a tiny example of the iceberg made of stinking offal that is most of the British press. We need libel laws.

On the other hand, think about it, you have Fox News and shock radio. Forget what I said, look at what happened to Obama. You do need some libel laws. You just need them to be more intelligent than ours. Try those of Germany. They work, and do not keep the partners in Carter- *uck rich.


#13

Now you can tell everybody…


#14

Mmm-mm. No way. They wouldn’t stop Fox News any more than yours stop the Daily Mail. Fox News isn’t really into misrepresenting individuals half as much as it into misrepresenting grand truths. No libel law will fix that. Libel law kept that asshole Watson of Watson and Crick from publishing his account of the discovery of DNA for a while, and now it’s part of the historical record- who knows what got left out. And for what? So that people wouldn’t get their feelings hurt? At that point the laws are hardly worth the salt they’re cooked with.

The result of having the kinds of laws in America that you have over there would be substantially the same as Ag-Gag laws (not likely to be on the books much longer under current law) and laws that beach reporters working in the public interest. All for what? Perhaps if the laws were more reasonable, the British public wouldn’t believe everything they read. If your papers are as bad as you say they are, and your public half as bad as ours, it would probably be an improvement. (Hardly anyone takes our tabloids seriously. If you watch Men in Black they’re the punchline to a joke.)


#15

It’s Elton John. I wouldn’t have the slightest interest if not for the freedom of press angle.


#16

Thanks for clearing that up; I misheard someone discussing this and thought it was Adam Buxton and Joe Cornish and I didn’t think that they were married.


#17

Oh dear, now I’ve read that in the UK I’d better turn myself in to the police.


#18

Remind me again when you stopped beating your wife? Was it before or after your conviction for crack dealing?


#19

Weirdly, you’re making my point for me. No one here entertains for a fraction of second that anything you said is to be taken seriously. Especially on the Internet, where libel laws have the worst reach and track record. Enforcement of a forum’s credibility creates credibility.


#20

When [person] had consensual sex and [person] is naked under their clothes stop being headlines, the world will be a better place. When I was younger, I naively thought more liberal attitudes toward sex would make this kind of thing boring to most people.