I am really very disappointed at the weekend revelations of who has a super injunction and why they got one. None of the people concerned are remotely of interest to me and what they have been getting up to is, well, to say the least somewhat predictable.
A bit of spanking? A bit of rumpy pumpy outwith the marriage? A visit to a reasonably priced prozzie?
The only reason I can imagine that these rather very sad people got a Super Injunction is because it has somehow replaced adoption of a poor black kid as the latest must-have accessory.
So, folks, perhaps you should aspire to getting one for yourself.
Go on. Go on, go on, go on, go on, go on.
Go on. Go on, go on, go on, go on, go on.
Go on. Go on, go on, go on, go on, go on.
Go on. Go on, go on, go on, go on, go on.
Go on. Go on, go on, go on, go on, go on.
NB: No C list celebs were harmed during the writing of this post.
3 comments:
That was about as subtle as a brick. Like it. ;-)
I was a bit perplexed to see Jeremy Clarkson in the frame. The thought of him having rumpy pumpy with a prozzie was just too tacky and predictable.
He'd never pay some sleazy lawyer to block such a good story.
So it's probably just made up.
Bob, thanks for your comment. I don't think there is any question of Jeremy Clarkson and a prozzie.
He is in the frame for other "misdemeanors" which have already been alluded to in the mainstream media.
This whole story has become far more than the subjects anticipated. In seeking to control information about their private lives, they have succeeded in doing the opposite.
As Hugh Grant recently said, "I was caught with a whore and it didn't do my career any harm."
The super-injunction is now of course stone dead. Why waste 100 grand unless you really, really, want the publicity?
My main objection to this use of the courts is that it is only an option for the rich, and arguably, they are more accountable than the rest of us.
Post a Comment