Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Why super-injunctions are great!

Terrible Tory Girl is in a mischievous mood. Today's Total Politics blog is inspired after too many years of reading reaction to a footballer's affair or a star caught with their trousers down.

She argues FOR super-injunctions and why they serve a basic service that some celebs should be entitled to have.

Read it here

1 comment:

Single acts of tyranny said...

"Marr’s stated aim was to protect his children from public embarrassment"

There are other, more certain ways to achieve this.

"But should publicity-shy celebrities be subjected to the same laws as those who conduct their lives for the camera?"

Er, how are you publicity shy if you appear at vast personal gain on Auntie? Want to eschew publicity? Get a job on the Brighton Argus. The rest comes with the territory.

"Is it hypocrisy?"

Yes it is. Giggs, like Woods before him sold the image of familial stablity. This was not entirely true.

"Provided the super-injunctions aren’t allowing the rich to use a get out of jail free card for committing an illegal offence, then why should we care?"

Because when Chris Huhne appeared with his family in election literature, saying how important family was, there are those who may question whether this, whilst not unlawful, was entirely sincere and playing with a straight bat.

"Not everyone signed up to the celebrity package"

No? then sing and the STFU, don't appear at celeb premiers smiling and saying how we should all Save the planet or whatever. Otherwise take the rough with the smooth.

Sorry but you are out on this one.