Friday, May 20, 2011

Super Junk

There’s a lot of talk in the papers and on the TV at the moment about super injunctions. I have to say that I haven’t read any of it nor listened to any of it – apart from a few gags about it on Have I Got News For You. Gags being the operative word, of course.

There’s a reason for my lack of interest which will become clear later.

Now, it strikes me that the whole situation is like finding a knot that someone has tied in a length of poo and then spending an unfathomable amount of time trying to unravel it.

Why bother? Why does anyone want to get their hands dirty with it?

Because, on the whole, there is very little moral high ground to be seen no matter which angle you approach the subject from.

I’ve heard lots of guff about freedom of the press and freedom of the individual to a private life. Which do you discern as being of greater value? We are all of us – celebs and Royals included – entitled to privacy. It is a basic human need. A basic human right.

But if some celebrity moral arbiter is then caught doing as he does rather than as he says, don’t we have a right to know about it?

We do. But that rather implies a moral imperative behind the exposé – and, let’s be honest, the only imperative behind most news stories these days (especially those that feature celebrities) is to sell more copy and make more money. There is nothing moral or edifying about that.

So then we have injunctions and super injunctions. Small, insidious cogs inserted into the gross machinery of the law to enable individuals to protect their interests / privacy from the rapacious, undiscerning appetites of the press.

I think I’d be more inclined to see these as a tool for individual human rights if they were freely available to everyone. They don’t appear to be. They seem only to be available to the super rich or the super influential. The superfluous man on the street can go and take a running jump.

At least, that’s how it appears. I don’t know. I haven’t read much into it or researched it.

Because, at the end of the day, I don’t think much to the press and I don’t think much of the politicians and the celebs they orbit. All of them have too much money – money that they all screw out of us one way or another – and too much say on things that matter to us more than it does to them.

I’d quite happily hang the lot of them.

Hence, I am exercising a super injunction of my own and am avoiding all news stories and articles about super injunctions. I don’t want to think, critique or in any way talk about them. They are off limits. Verboten. And if you feel the same way I will understand why you have bailed out of this post before this point.

Because even just talking about them is a waste of time, energy and money.

Super injunctions are the thief of time; the media wait for a court order from no man...



Share

27 comments:

Martin Lower said...

Pretty much agree with all the above, Steve. Especially your comments about injunctions only being available to the wealthy. Mind you, recourse to law increasingly seems to be available only to the rich. One consolation of being the 'man on the street,' seems to be that the media are unlikely to take much interest in me. Rupert Murdoch, as far as I know, remains oblivious to my existence...

Steve said...

Martin: "Rupert Murdoch, as far as I know, remains oblivious to my existence..." - until you forget to pay your SKY bill!

Gorilla Bananas said...

Humans are nosy parkers. This wouldn't even be an issue if the masses weren't interested in the sex lives of the famous. My females once threatened to gang rape Hugh Grant so they could sell the story to the papers. I had to let them gang rape me instead.

Keith said...

The main thing that strikes me about all of this, is how disappointing the reality is when the super-injunction is breeched, or lifted. My imagination conjures up much juicier stuff than the reality. It usually seems to be just another bloke who can't keep it zipped up, and since when was that a revelation.

It's like the monster in the horror film. It's always so much better when you don't know what it is.

Steve said...

Gorilla Bananas: had your females had their way with him I doubt Hugh would have had the emotional capacity to respond in any way at all.

Keith: things are always juicier when kept zipped up tightly. Especially trouser monsters.

Marginalia said...

I'm sorry if Sir Fred Goodwin's been shagging a senior work colleague when he should have been managing my bank not bankrupting it: I want to know!!!!

Why wasn't he on the job -oh he was!

Steve said...

Marginalia: the big question is, was he making a substantial deposit or a hasty withdrawal?

the fly in the web said...

Hang the lot of them sounds like a good election slogan to me...and I'm still giggling over your reply to Marginalia.

The Dotterel said...

Spot on, Steve - although Marginalia does have a point. And while Rupert might not personally know of Mr Lower's existence, you can bet some grubby little reporter'll be on the case should he - or any one of us - indulge in anything that might entertain the readers of the Sunday 'papers!

Steve said...

The fly in the web: "hang the lot of them" could be the start of a huge global movement. Reminds me of Richard Prior's [vote for] None Of The Above election campaign in Brewster's Millions. Nothing motivates people more than disatisfaction.

Steve said...

The Dotterel: sadly even vice requires a substantial wallet these days. I'd love to have enough money to buy the Sunday papers let alone have enough money to get "into" them.

the fly in the web said...

In the last presidential elections in Costa Rica was
'Vote for me...the least bad'!

Steve said...

The fly in the web: that says less about politics and more about people's natural honesty than anything else.

I'm trying to see the positive. Can you tell?

Marginalia said...

I do! Since when has anything I've written had any point.

Steve, Thanks for that image. I'm never again going to be able to make an ATM withdrawal without thinking of Freddy.

Steve said...

Marginalia: it may be, of course that Freddy had insufficient funds to complete his own transaction...! ;-)

Being Me said...

I've nothing remotely intelligent to add, as it sounds like you're eluding to local current affairs - suffice to say, of course, this crap with the media happens the world over and, yes, I'm frustrated as hell that they get to report on what they think is newsworthy (pffft) /money-making/pot-stirring/marginalising. So I tend to keep my head right out of all of it because my heart gets too involved.

Steve said...

Being me: "nothing remotely intelligent to add"? Yours has been the most intelligent response so far. ;-)

joebloggs said...

Until people stop buying "ello" magazine and watching "cleb jungle" there will always be this battle between the "press" and the Rich and Famous. Let them keep themselves occupied with the piffle and let those with a clearer mind focus on the more important stuff, like Lego and the return of Wild Swimming on BBC3...Now there's a super Injunction just waiting to happen!!

Steve said...

Joe: ah... wild swimming. Funnily enough, Dr Alice Roberts already has a super injunction out against me. No. Hold on. My mistake. It's a restraining order.

Mark said...

Well said Steve. And by avoiding the media most of the stories become irrelevant anyway.

Steve said...

Mark: the inverse of this is also true. I heard on the news tonight that a footballer "outed" on Twitter by an mysterious Tweeter as having had an affair and then bought himself a super injunction to cover it up is demanding Twitter hands over info as to the mysterious Tweeter's identity. Now, I saw those Tweets when they first came out and didn't give them much credence. Now, of course, this stupid footballer has all but proven them as true. I know the identity of the footballer, by the way, but dare not name him here in case I'm in contempt of a super injunk. Which, of course, I am.

Phil said...

Super Injunks are just the new ‘cool things to have’ for the self obsessed self publicising celebres. Just as ‘Asbo’s’ are to the ‘respect’ thuglets in hoodies. The press and the lawyers love them as much as the publicity seeking celebs do. So everyone who’s trying to be anyone…wins. Simples.

Steve said...

Phil: injunks = ASBOs. Like it. Both poetry and mathematics in one easy to swallow tablet.

The Poet Laura-eate said...

In light of Freddie Goodwin's downfall this week (slayer of Royal Bank of Scotland), super injunctions are remarkably ineffective as well, promoting such hyper-speculation that the truth will out eventually when certain individuals can no longer stand the pressure. And of course when it does come out, the rich b***ard who tried to silence everyone (doubtless using bank funds to do it) looks even worse than if he'd just fessed up to the affair that that his mind wasn't on his real job in the first place.

Steve said...

Laura: the fact that super injunctions make the ne'erdowells looks even shabbier almost makes them worthwhile having in my book.

femminismo said...

Well, leave it to you to clue me in. I hadn't even heard of super-injunctions! I'm guessing from the conversation they must be "the court says you can't discuss me and the naughty things I did (allegedly)." Oh please give me a break. But, yes, I'm with the commenter who said they do want to know about some of it because they would so like to know who screwed them out of their hard-earned money!

Steve said...

Femminismo: and who also encouraged them so effortlessly to screw themselves out of their own sense of self respect. ;-)