Technology3 mins ago
What now?
30 Answers
http://tinyurl.com/3zwkqqp
Well it appears the whole sordid mess is now out in the open, for everyone to gossip about.
Does it make you feel better, or are you just waiting in anticipation for the next victim?
Well it appears the whole sordid mess is now out in the open, for everyone to gossip about.
Does it make you feel better, or are you just waiting in anticipation for the next victim?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Surely the point here is not whether it is our business or whether we care about the story. Regardless of Imogen Thomas's moral character, she should be entitled to talk about something that has actually happened to her.
If the stories were untrue, that is slander/libel and there is recourse in law. If there was any suggestion of blackmail (and i think that is a lie intended as a smokescreen) then that is also a policed matter.
t is unacceptable for anyone to be in a position of 'I have had an affair but i can't say who with because they are rich enough to have organised a court injunction stopping me'.
Freedom is speech is paramount provided the PCC is given teeth to deal with tabloid fabrications that shamelessly hurt ordinary people e.g. The Daily Mail and Subramanyam Parameswaran in 2009 for which they later apologised after being dragged into the High Court.
http://www.guardian.c...ameswaran-subramanyam
.
If the stories were untrue, that is slander/libel and there is recourse in law. If there was any suggestion of blackmail (and i think that is a lie intended as a smokescreen) then that is also a policed matter.
t is unacceptable for anyone to be in a position of 'I have had an affair but i can't say who with because they are rich enough to have organised a court injunction stopping me'.
Freedom is speech is paramount provided the PCC is given teeth to deal with tabloid fabrications that shamelessly hurt ordinary people e.g. The Daily Mail and Subramanyam Parameswaran in 2009 for which they later apologised after being dragged into the High Court.
http://www.guardian.c...ameswaran-subramanyam
.
Should a well-known celebrity be able to obtain a super-injunction to cover up that he allegedly sexually harassed one of his employees? It's unlikely that she willingly participated in this so should he be allowed to buy a media gagging order to hide what could be inexcusable behaviour?
This case could well be the next centre of attention.
This case could well be the next centre of attention.
Zeuhl, the judge said the evidence before him "appeared strongly to suggest that the Claimant was being blackmailed (although that is not how he put it himself). I hasten to add, as is obvious, that I cannot come to any final conclusion about it at this stage". But he took the preliminary step of suppressing G's name, which is normal: if the names of blackmail victims (real or imagined) were published, they would never dare go to the police.
He also said, in suppressing the name, "The Claimant is a married man with a family. It is well established, in such circumstances, that the court needs to take into account and have regard to the interests of the claimant’s family members, and their rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms."
All that sounds fair enough to me. Injunctions are temporary measures; the protection of possible blackmail victims, and their families, seems a reasonable step to take until the full truth comes out.
As to whether the woman was in it for the money, perhaps we won't see any tabloid stories this weekend headlined "Imogen Thomas: My Story". Or perhaps we will. In fact a story (I gather it named her but not him) had already appeared in the Sun, which was why the injunction was sought in the first place.
He also said, in suppressing the name, "The Claimant is a married man with a family. It is well established, in such circumstances, that the court needs to take into account and have regard to the interests of the claimant’s family members, and their rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms."
All that sounds fair enough to me. Injunctions are temporary measures; the protection of possible blackmail victims, and their families, seems a reasonable step to take until the full truth comes out.
As to whether the woman was in it for the money, perhaps we won't see any tabloid stories this weekend headlined "Imogen Thomas: My Story". Or perhaps we will. In fact a story (I gather it named her but not him) had already appeared in the Sun, which was why the injunction was sought in the first place.
As I have mentioned before - it is getting ever easier to entirely miss the point about this situation.
Firstly, if this couple have had an affair, then that is rightly considered to be their business, and most importantly, not in the public interest - hence the SI to prevent publication. That has nothing to do with the identity or status of the parties involved, it is about an individual's right to privacy, which does not have a cut-off point based on a level of celebrity and income.
Whether of not Digs was having an affair is for the parties concerned to know, and - because of the media we deserve - a matter of massive newspaper sales to speculate over, and that is the seriously sad aspect of this whole sorry business.
Busy getting lost in this is a serious and important debate about the right of privacy balanced against the right of free speech which matters not at all in this instance, but matters very much when national interests are involved.
If people didn;t care about the minutia of the lives of others, this story would have no money attached to it, and it would cease to matter. The fact that it does - and it will run and run, is a sad inditement on our society and its attitudes to celebrity.
To address your question AOG - no it does not make me feel better, for the reasons outlined, and I am not waiting in any way shape or form for the next situation which must be on its way even as I write.
Firstly, if this couple have had an affair, then that is rightly considered to be their business, and most importantly, not in the public interest - hence the SI to prevent publication. That has nothing to do with the identity or status of the parties involved, it is about an individual's right to privacy, which does not have a cut-off point based on a level of celebrity and income.
Whether of not Digs was having an affair is for the parties concerned to know, and - because of the media we deserve - a matter of massive newspaper sales to speculate over, and that is the seriously sad aspect of this whole sorry business.
Busy getting lost in this is a serious and important debate about the right of privacy balanced against the right of free speech which matters not at all in this instance, but matters very much when national interests are involved.
If people didn;t care about the minutia of the lives of others, this story would have no money attached to it, and it would cease to matter. The fact that it does - and it will run and run, is a sad inditement on our society and its attitudes to celebrity.
To address your question AOG - no it does not make me feel better, for the reasons outlined, and I am not waiting in any way shape or form for the next situation which must be on its way even as I write.
I was reading (in the Metro, 24th May) an interview with Imogen's sister. She was saying how the whole family are worried about how she is about to become anorexic and alcoholic with the stress of all of these issues and can't leave the house and is just miserable. Then the sister added to the sob story, unfortunately, by adding thatshe's lost £50 - or £100K in earnings..... because she was prevented in selling her 'story'. !!! For Funks Sake!! Bless her! She should sue him for loss of earnings! Oh hang on, isn't that how this starte....... I'll shut up before Ryan or Imogen sue me.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank4 mins ago
Iphone To Android Adapter - Not For...
Technology14 mins ago
Starmer Continues With "Grossly...
News30 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles31 mins ago
