Google analytics

Friday, 20 May 2011

No m’Lud

Lord Neuberger, the Master of the Rolls, admitted that bloggers and users of social network sites such as Twitter would not necessarily be covered by court orders, even though some simply “peddle lies”.

But he rejected claims that the situation made injunctions futile because the internet had "by no means the same degree of intrusion into privacy as the story being emblazoned on the front pages of newspapers", which "people trust more”.

I’m afraid my “noble” lord, that you are living in the past. Newspapers across the board are experiencing lower sales year on year, whilst the social networking sites are increasing their volume of traffic. Even my humble blog has experienced an increase in traffic by seventeen times in one year. This year if I keep up enough quality blogging (Note to self: Don’t write shite), I would expect to double last years increase. Don’t forget mine is not an overtly political blog, I just occasionally enter  the political world as others write about it better than me.

My personal take on morality is if you are caught red-handed breaking laws, offending public decency, cheating on your spouse, then you deserve to by held to account. Just because you have vast financial resources at your disposal does not give you the right to more privacy than me.

Are we not supposed to be equal under the law?

Seems not.


  1. There's a delicious irony in rich transgressors forking out £thousands to to hide their indiscretions, only to be 'outed' to even greater publicity by the hoi poloi.

    The Streisand effect.

  2. I take great delight in spending no money in finding out the truth whildt they spend thousands trying to hide it. Poetic justice.

  3. I'm ashamed that I have forgotten who said it, but it is so delicious that I shall quote it anyway.

    We all have a right to privacy. We can maintain that privacy, and prevent intrusion into our private life by newspapers, by the relatively simple expedient of *not* paying a prostitute to stick a vibrator up our arses.

  4. The Streisand effect, quite so Joe. I have not the slightest interest in the private lives of footballers &etc. but they bring publicity upon themselves by using their money to gain press protection unaffordable to most of us.
    They deserve all the spotlighting they get.

    Especially Fred the Shred for buying that Dutch bank just to prove what a big c*ck he's got to the staffer he was shagging (allegedly).

  5. Would you be so righteous or interested if it was some git from the estate that did this.
    Or is it plain jelousy.

  6. 'Some git from the estate' wouldn't be likely to need a superinjunction, because 'some git from the estate' wouldn't have a(false) image to maintain, would they?

  7. 'Or is it plain jelousy' judging by the behavior of some gits from the estates, they would milk the situation for all it's worth, selling the 'gits' story to the Sun, the Mirror, so on and so forth.

    Frankly there is no need for super injunctions in this quarter, I couldn't give a rats arse, if some git puts a vibrator up another rats arse. I don't doubt judging by the way he had inflated his banks earnings 'the shred' didn't need a vibrator.

    It's the very existence of a super injunction that makes it interesting.

  8. ****Content injuncted**** by orders of Lord Neuberger protector of immorality and restrictor of free speech.

  9. Aw, bless, he's going to ask who the Beatles are next. Google is your friend, my Lord.

  10. It's a great responsibility, going around peddling lies.


Say what you like. I try to reply. Comments are not moderated. The author of this blog is not liable for any defamatory or illegal comments.