Andrew Marr admits super injunction.
Discussion
garyhun said:
More or less what I said. Political commentators are not on a par with football players showbiz tarts.
The rich and famous are able to get these injunctions, and has enough resources to ride out the storm. However, the typical person hasn't a hope if the tabloids choose to pick on them.
Also, no one ever exposes the hypocrisy of the press. You'd think journalists never had affairs, smoked dodgy stuff, or got drunk judging by the high moral tone of what is written in their rags.
Also, no one ever exposes the hypocrisy of the press. You'd think journalists never had affairs, smoked dodgy stuff, or got drunk judging by the high moral tone of what is written in their rags.
Manks said:
Eric Mc said:
Listen to Ian Hislop's interview on Radio 4 this morning.
I agree. RADIO 4 Ref. Marr InjunctionI can't see that he can come out of this unscathed. I'd say that his credibility has been affected, which is bound to have some influence in his career.
The ironic thing is that the public generally don't even remember who's had an affair. It's not uncommon, and often becomes yesterday's news in no time. Marr's indiscrepancy will be far more remembered because if the injunction.
Edited by MX7 on Tuesday 26th April 13:46
Jasandjules said:
Does that mean he's in breach of the injunction then!?!? 
It's all a bit odd. He has spent what? £10-15k to secure it (guessing here) and if he had not said anything who would have known... ...well maybe the industry that employs him knows and possibly for whatever reason his hypocrisy was about to bite him in the backside.
Perhaps it was a case of undoing a historic damage limitation exercise as part of a current day damage limitation exercise.
I cannot believe that anyone sufficiently self-serving as to have taken out the injunction in the first place could have anything but self-interest at heart when revealing it.
Manks said:
I cannot believe that anyone sufficiently self-serving as to have taken out the injunction in the first place could have anything but self-interest at heart when revealing it.
And I can't believe the law is so bent as to allow gagging orders, especially about some idiot lefty and his tart. What tosser approved this then, and in which bent court?FFS the legal system in this country is a joke.
I don't disagree with super injunctions in principle as I feel that the lack of policy around privacy laws has led to them being used more widely as people in the public eye try to protect their personal lives outside of their jobs. I don't see how it's in the public interest apart from in a prurient sense to know who had sex with who or what they do in their sex life.
What I think is an issue however is the fact that the courts are effectively defining an individual's right to privacy based on their ability to pay for that privilege and IMO it should be a right, not a choice.
What I think is an issue however is the fact that the courts are effectively defining an individual's right to privacy based on their ability to pay for that privilege and IMO it should be a right, not a choice.
M3333 said:
I loved the comment from Marr about why he sought the injunction. 'I had my own family to think about'
Ashame he did not think of his own family while his trousers were around his ankles.
The utter cretin.
+1 But he's a leftie lovey . . . they don't need to think of others, it's always somebody else's fault.Ashame he did not think of his own family while his trousers were around his ankles.
The utter cretin.
garyhun said:
Didn't he "come clean" due to Hislop making some legal advances so he had no choice?
It was likely that his injunction would fail given his position of "trust". He's admitted the affair but not who it was with, which is probably enough to remove the public interest while preserving a bit of his privacy. Like a normal injunction, really. If an individual trades on a "family values" image (e.g. by inviting the media to their marriage or making a pronouncement on their opinions that the perfect family is a married heterosexual couple with 2 kids) the media should be free to publish any details about things they hear of that suggest they are not personally perfect in this regard.
If the do not do this, then it should be considered private and the media should not publish it. I wasn't aware that Andrew Marr was married and I assume he had not ever spoken publicly about his opinions on this institution, so the media should not publish them.
If the do not do this, then it should be considered private and the media should not publish it. I wasn't aware that Andrew Marr was married and I assume he had not ever spoken publicly about his opinions on this institution, so the media should not publish them.
davepoth said:
Jasandjules said:
Well, there is a lot of law in this country which serves only the rich. This is one of them.
That, and everything else. Blame common law for it, it makes our laws very complicated and requires employing a solicitor to understand it. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff