How to
SEO advice
Categories: Internet, Latest, Newspapers, Twitter. Tags: , ,

Super injunction names: 6 national newspaper stories that flouted the injunction to reveal all

May 11, 2011 4 Comments

The newspapers have been deliberately fuelling the fire of the Twitter super injunction frenzy - but they've also been running stories that, with a nod and a wink, tell you the names of the celebrities with injunctions. Here are six of those stories from the last week ...

Shush now

Shhh, don't tell ...

To avoid prison, I've changed or anonymised the details so you can't Google them, sorry.

  1. One tabloid ran a story bemoaning how celebrity X hadn't talked about his wife much lately. That was the entire (non)story. It went on, for no reason, to compare the love of (rumoured super injuncter) celebrity X for his wife with the love of family-loving (and rumoured super injuncter) footballer Y for his wife. Underneath that: "Comments closed for legal reasons". This couldn't have been more obvious if it tried.
  2. A broadsheet ran a column in which the author suggested an ideal set of companions for a meal - the names were a who's who of those with alleged super injunctions.
  3. Another broadsheet has just run a story, written by the travel correspondent (OK, it wasn't the travel correspondent but it was on a par with them in terms of relevance), complaining that a certain performer hadn't done any gigs for a while and hadn't been on Twitter lately. There was no point to this story.
  4. Meanwhile a tabloid suggested an actor was deserving of an award for acting after being seen bravely holding hands with his wife.
  5. The News of the World just told everyone to look on Twitter, but helpfully pointed out it wasn't Gaby Logan or Alan Shearer, just so you woudn't be confused by any false rumours.
  6. Meanwhile, every paper in Britain has gleefully pointed out that there is a Twitter account that has revealed who has a super injunction - before, again, helpfully pointing out exactly which of these tweets is not true.

I am amazed that the lawyers let these stories through. Although there's not much chance of people going to court for tweeting the rumours, the paper's are treading a very fine line. It's almost as if they are deliberately trying to get the facts out in the open so they can get these super injunctions overturned ...

You might also like
  1. Fred Goodwin’s “affair” super-injunction shredded by internet
  2. Twitter and super injunctions: no one need pack their toothbrush
  3. 394,000 web pages name Imogen Thomas’s anonymous injunction footballer
  4. National newspaper Twitter account growth gets ever slower …
  5. Super injunctions and Twitter: Alfie Patten, John Terry, [redacted] and [redacted]

Share this post

Follow me on Facebook or Twitter


  • Lee says:

    So, what do we know? Well, without naming names, and to be honest I've not heard of several of the so-called 'celebrities' this is what I've discovered.

    A famous [redacted by malcolm so as not to be sued!!] likes to wear gimp masks and pays prostitutes to humiliate him.

    A [redacted] had an affair with a journalist. She became pregnant and he ended up paying child support for several years before finding out that he wasn't the father. The father is actually a [redacted] who had a big fall-out with another [redacted] several years ago...because he was sharing the same lover as the other two.

    [redacted] pays prostitutes so that he can whip them.

    Another [redacted] paid a prostitute to ram a dildo up his arse.

    You couldn't make it up.

  • alex says:

    Don't forget this story in the [readcted!], randomly giving a [celebrity] quote at the start, then jumping off to talk about superinjunctions.

    [redacted, sorry!]

    Redact as you see fit ;-)

    Then of course yesterday Guido Fawkes happens to tweet a random load of names, and today the Daily Mail helpfully confirms them to be the subject of superinjunctions. Did the Daily Mail cross the line here? After all, until they published their story, they were just a random bunch of names. Now we all know they were not.

    Perhaps this is the way to get round these things in the future. Have several sources all publishing snippets which in themselves do not give the game away, but taken together the story can be deduced.

    • Jules says:

      I can think of only one set of grounds for 'super injunctions' and that is where there are issues of national security involved.

      That said, we have a situation where newspapers are (it seems) free to print whatever they please, regardless of whether the story they print is true or not - yes there are libel laws, but it is beyond the funds and ability of most people to take papers to court.

      I beleive in freedome of speach BUT I think that papers and publishers should have an onus on them to verify stories and have proof about the stories they are printing before they go to print. They also publish that proof or, if they need to protect a 'source', the individual concerned (or an independent panel bound by law to silence if the story checks out) should have the right to see the evidence on which the story is based. If the story is proven groundless, there should be no protection for the source of the inforamtion

      If a salcious story is printed that has no foundation in truth and the publisher has not met basic standards of verifying a story (i.e more than just because someone told them so), then there should be automatic damages payouts that are paid without recourse to courts but ruled on by an adjudication board.

      A practice like this would concentrate the mind of publishers to make sure that journalists are sure of their facts, and do away with the blight of lazy journalism. If the papers have been supplied with fabricated evidence it would be up to the papers to go and sue the individuals who supplied them with the false story.

      If the papers or magazines want to print gossip, then print gossip - but make it absolubtely clear that the story they are printing IS only gossip, based on an individuals say so, and that they have no hard evidence to back the story up.

      Our basic freedoms are being steadily eroded, and it is time for people to stand up and say 'enough'. Super injunctions are just another manifestation of the erosion or our freedoms in UK society. We should all be free to print or say what we like, but we should also have some responsibility in law to make sure that what we print is accurate or true if we are presenting it as 'The Truth'.

      • valm says:

        I agree .... super injunctions are being used by the wrong people for the wrong purpose. But also, tabloids and magazines print headlines and stories which are deliberately misleading or downright lies just to make sales.
        If someone lives in the public eye, part of that means their private lives become more public than they would like.
        Interestingly, if these super injunction seekers were concerned about the upset to their families if they were caught out cheating, why did they risk it? They have brought this on themselves.

Leave a comment!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.