What is the point of an injunction these days

Social media is awash with a story that has been rumbling on for a couple of weeks now and it is proving, once again, that injunctions are making the UK privacy laws a joke.  And making me ask what is the point of an injunction these days?  I am clearly not talking about those that NEED them for their own safety, such as victims of domestic abuse.  I am talking about cheating celebs who are trying to buy them to hide their philandering.

In case you weren’t aware let me bring you up to speed.   Oh and before I start I need to say something.   Because of those privacy laws and the fact there is an injunction in place “to protect the privacy of the children” I can’t name any of the parties involved.   Please.   For the sake of the children?    You can’t parade your children in public as this person so often does as part of their trying to prove what a devoted and loving family they are and then hide behind privacy laws when you ditch them and your partner to go off and shag Tom, Dick and Harry in a nearby Travelodge.  NB i have no idea if there was a Tom, Dick or Harry involved.  It could have been Rita, Sue and Bob too for all I know and ditto the Travelodge.   Just in case any lawyer reads this.  

 So, where were we?

Oh yes me bringing you up to speed.   One half of a celeb couple decides that he is going to get friendly with another couple and then jump into bed with them and keep jumping into bed with them over a three year period.   During which time he continues to put out the image of being a family man.

The other couple, not the celeb couple, (keep up keep up) then decide to try and sell their story to the gutter press.   That in itself is shameful.   And to be honest I have little sympathy for them now as they bleat on about “we did nothing wrong, all we did was tell the truth”.    Well I do wish you hadn’t.   Why did you?  Other than to pay off your mortgage I suspect.

At this point the celeb couple ran to their lawyers and took out an injunction banning anybody from naming them or the other couple.

So far so good and it might have all then died down.

Except in the US, Australia and New Zealand they don’t have privacy laws.   So they don’t care.   They have been reporting the story and naming those involved.    And of course once that happened it was all over social media.

It isn’t hard to find out who the celeb couple are (took me six seconds) and then if you search those names you get all the links and chatter.

Which begs the question “what is the point of injunctions”?   The press are banned from naming them, I am banned from naming them, but it is all over Twitter.   Anybody with a knowledge of Google or the name of American tabloids can find the story.   The whole thing is a farce.   It can even be reported in Scotland since the law only applies to England and Wales.

And don’t get me started on super injunctions, something I wrote about a few years ago.

The country that founded the notion of free speech and the legal system on which so many others are based is now being circumvented by the modern age.

You could argue of course that all those people who have tweeted it are in contempt of court if they are in the UK.   Leaving themselves open to prosecution.   A plight Sally Bercow found herself in when she tweeted about Lord McAlpine and it ended up costing her £50,000 .   That doesn’t mean that we can’t read them though which just makes the UK legal system a joke.

Quite frankly I don’t care who sleeps with who.   It really makes no difference to my life and I do think that if you are in the public eye you are still entitled to a private life.   Dragging your kids into it and saying it is their right to privacy I think is a bit much.    You should think about that before you drop your trousers and consider spending that money not on injunctions after the fact but on a gagging order before.

No pun intended.