No, I don’t want to know the name

And please don’t cause libel problems by adding it to the comments.

The latest injunction involves a celebrity identified only as ‘PJS’ and his partner ‘YMA’, who took action to keep their “open relationship” including a ménage à trois under wraps.

But I would like to know how out of touch I am with modern society. Is this a celebrity I might have heard of, someone possibly important, or is it someone who once played third chair from the left on Westenders?

47 thoughts on “No, I don’t want to know the name”

  1. I do have to say that, despite what the media claim, “of interest to (some of) the public” is not synonymous with “in the public interest.”

    While I oppose the concept of these injunctions, I can’t see how news on consensual adult sexual relationships, even adulterous ones by famous people, can actually be “in the public interest”, barring the limited case of hypocrisy amongst the legislature.

  2. you’ll have heard of him – the guardian gave it away when they first reported YMA as being his wife, subsequently changed to his married partner

  3. I don’t know for certain that it is who’s implied as the US websites covering it are blocked and I can’t be arsed to get around it, but if you haven’t heard of the guy I’ll be surprised, very well known celebrity whos been in the news on and off for decades, married to a man. I could make a few references that’d make it obvious but I also know the law in this area.

  4. “Is this a celebrity I might have heard of, someone possibly important, or is it someone who once played third chair from the left on Westenders?”

    Yes to the first. Important? Well….

  5. I would have thought the principle of free speech required the party seeking the injunction to show preventing publication was in the public interest; not the other way around.

    Ho hum, I know nothing.

  6. So Much For Subtlety

    Surreptitious Evil – “I do have to say that, despite what the media claim, “of interest to (some of) the public” is not synonymous with “in the public interest.””

    That may be so but what is in the public interest is not having the Courts decide what we can and cannot know. There is a definite public interest in not allowing the State to censor the media. At least without a very good reason.

    Although it is interesting people are having kittens over the leak of private information from Panama. If we had a real privacy law I am willing to bet “Dave” and his friends would have used to to keep that news quiet. As they would in France.

  7. You can find it easily on Google, their names have been published outside of the UK. Having only lived in the UK for 18 months in the last 18 years, their fame or otherwise is something I can only speculate on, but they look like they are regular tabloid celebrity fodder.

    O/T: Meanwhile, in the Telegraph, low-dairy fat diets appear to be linked to the large increase in diabetes. So the skim milk, low-fat yoghurt, vegetable oil spread food-misery prescribed for us is responsible for the fatty lard-buckets and diabetics, because, sugar and carbohydrates. It will I suppose keep NHS costs down, as they never make it to those last few years in Weston-Super-Mare.

    Dairy products make you feel full, which is why children got sent to school with a cheese sarnie, full-fat yoghurt and a chocolate bar, or at least they did when I grew up.

  8. If it is the person everyone thinks it is, then yes, you will have heard of the person and, thus, are not out of touch – anymore than any other middle aged blokey.

  9. So Much For Subtlety

    Rolo Tamasi – “Does everything I do have to be in the public interest?”

    Well shooting a police officer in the back isn’t in the public interest ….

  10. SMFS,

    Well, it could be if said police officer was about to murder an innocent member of the public.

  11. The Meissen Bison

    I’m with the unlikely pairing of Ironman and SMFS on this.

    There has to be a jolly good reason for the courts to forbid publication of a story and it is not sufficient to do so on the grounds of bad taste or prurience.

  12. So Much For Subtlety

    The Inimitable Steve – “Is it because they have children?”

    We are afraid that the children will find out that the people pretending to be their parents are also pretending to be married?

  13. Doc Bud:
    “SMFS,

    Well, it could be if said police officer was about to murder an innocent member of the public.”

    Or even an innocent dog.

  14. I wonder if either or both would participate in the gang bang film I am trying to set up with Polly. Provisional title is “When Rocco banged Polly” .

  15. “Polly-Filla–When Rocco banged Polly” would be a better title.

    You must have a strong stomach and LOTS of Viagra.

  16. As planned, the film ends with me painting her face, holding her head in a toilet pan and flushing it. Is anyone interested?

  17. I thought you read Guido, Tim?

    He runs stick-out-like-a-sore-thumb stories from time to time. He did recently. Usually a hint.

    My fave was a while back – a rather pointless looking piece pointing out the distinctiveness of BoJo’s blonde hair.

    Followed almost immediately by the story of the politician who can’t be named in connection with the birth of a child out of some extra-marital affair, where the court restricted even reference to physical features due to their distinct and identifying nature. That was particularly cheeky.

  18. Is this a celebrity I might have heard of, someone possibly important, or is it someone who once played third chair from the left on Westenders?

    Well “Search” reveals you’ve done 8 posts on him, although none recently, so you clearly know him.

    Equally, when the Daily Mail says a “US Magazine” has done a story on it and it’s about a celebrity, there is one magazine which stands head and shoulders over the rest in this regard.

  19. John Galt

    Only problem being said magazine is often full of complete rubbish. Though best not to grace its pages if you’re a political type.

  20. @MyBurningEars:

    True, the weekly tabloid in question does pay its sources for stories if they are justified, which is a big “no no” in most of the dead tree press, but there is nothing to suggest that the story is untrue, just that the “celebrity couple” the injunction concerns don’t wish their children (aged 5 and 3 respectively) to find out about their sexual goings-on.

    I have no problem with the celebrity couple squandering their money how they see fit, nor having sexual intercourse with any number of consenting adults of either sex, but I do object to them trying to use the British legal establishment to shield what is essentially the “dirty laundry” of their private lives from public view.

  21. If casual sex is the bag of this mystery “couple” then they shouldn’t have got hold of a couple of kids.

    Or they should knock off their sordid side-activities ( clearly they know what they are about could have a detrimental affect on the children in their custody or why bother with the legal hacks at all) until they are grown up.

  22. Timmy, you’re either in Portugal or Czech; injunctions don’t apply to you.

    I vehemently disagree with the original reporting of the case. We were told that both individuals were well-known entertainers. That’s about as true as saying that Sally Bercow is well known as Speaker of the House.

  23. Andrew M

    Actually, isn’t this web site hosted out of the US (or is that not relevant)?

    And Tim’s point above was do with potential libel rather than an injunction?

  24. MBE

    “Having written my earlier comment, I see Guido’s gone pretty much the whole hog now.”

    🙂

  25. Well it’s your gaff, your rules. But is it libel to merely report the existence of an injunction?

  26. Andrew

    There is such a thing as a superinjunction, where you are not only forbidden from mentioning the details of the injunction but also prevented from disclosing its existence.

  27. however, it would probably not be libel because the injunction is itself the remedy. You would face fines, possible imprisonment and maybe a charge of contempt of court.

  28. Bloke in Costa Rica

    I imagine the sleb in question is now realising the awesome power of the Streisand effect. It’ll take him a couple of vodka and tonics to set him on his feet again, if I’m any judge.

  29. Since the name was out already I did the suggested search. I’ve never heard of the person* but that is to be expected as I don’t follow that genre*.

    For what I’ve seen the threesome in debate was between three consenting adults. Remind me again why I should care what happens behind closed doors?

    If this is a right wing SJW cause then count me out. With the expansion of marriage to include just about ever combination between two adults I fully expect polygamy to be coming up for debate soon. When polygamy is legalized I expect the only change in my life will be having to suffer through the debate over how bad it really isn’t.

    *Pronoun and field changed to protect identity.

  30. I don’t see why why they so needed to keep this secret; after all everybody’s got a part time love.

  31. So Much For Subtlety

    When I saw this I assumed it couldn’t run for six posts before someone named him no matter what TimW said. Presumably in the usual British manner of making a pun about his name or, you know, something connected with his career. Well, I was only about three dozen posts off.

    Let’s see if Guido gets slapped down.

    I am just hoping that CD is not Wendi Deng. The young lady does seem to be putting it about everywhere these days.

  32. So Much For Subtlety

    Bloke in Costa Rica – “I imagine the sleb in question is now realising the awesome power of the Streisand effect. It’ll take him a couple of vodka and tonics to set him on his feet again, if I’m any judge.”

    All publicity is good publicity. You think that this might be followed by a spike in sales? I mean when was the last time you had heard of this man?

    I would guess he is counting on the Streisand effect.

  33. Since the name was out already I did the suggested search. I’ve never heard of the person* but that is to be expected as I don’t follow that genre*.

    If you mean the actual celeb (rather than the partner of said celeb), I’m not sure I really believe that, unless your search took you up a dark alley?

  34. I never clicked on any links to avoid adding traffic to the sites that posted the name. The person I say in the brief google blurb was not someone I would have any reason to know.

    In the end it doesn’t matter to me who it actually is. This is a juicy bit of gossip and nothing more.

  35. @diogenes, April 8, 2016 at 3:46 pm

    Andrew

    There is such a thing as a superinjunction, where you are not only forbidden from mentioning the details of the injunction but also prevented from disclosing its existence.

    Ah yes, reported as a #superinjuction when it was “only” an injuction. Never mind, some have explained the difference between a #superinjuction and the other.

    @Bloke in Costa Rica, April 8, 2016 at 6:31 pm

    I imagine the sleb in question is now realising the awesome power of the Streisand effect. It’ll take him a couple of vodka and tonics to set him on his feet again, if I’m any judge.

    Very true, I have no interest in celebs whether A or Z list, but when I read about these secrecy rulings I want to find out who it is. Perhaps Tom “Wicthfinder General” Watson will shed some candle light on this with a gusty question in the HoC.

    The identities of the allegedly gay couple – source The Guardian – remaining secret is as likely as a candle in the wind staying alight.

    On a related note of web censorship, I have discovered that it is possible to view some sites the site owner restricts UK access to by clicking view cache on google search, eg National Enquirer

    Cheers,

    P

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *