The Mail today

Portrait of a perfect marriage: 11 years after Elton proposed to David, the intimate story of their loving relationship – in their own words

Four Canutes of British justice: Supreme Court bans naming of threesome star in ruling that opens the gates to a flood of gagging orders for the rich and famous

18 thoughts on “The Mail today”

  1. So Much For Subtlety

    I feel that someone’s lawyer has been talking to someone else’s lawyer and the second party opted for something other than a massive financial settlement.

  2. I thought that was ironic too. And the comments was disabled just as for the story about that bloke from some Abbey or other.

  3. As with the Washington Redskins, do the great unwashed masses of Daily Mail readers actually give two hoots about Elton & David’s private lives?

  4. “In their own words” being the important line here.

    Sarcasm also being laid on thick in the intro.

  5. “Four Canutes of British justice: Supreme Court bans naming of threesome star in ruling that opens the gates to a flood of gagging orders for the rich and famous”

    Let’s not forget the element of self-protection here. Judges and top lawyers aren’t immune from press exposes. Even if none of them have been up to anything they may still have a desire to protect their colleagues — or even just their field — who are. Not to mention their rich and powerful friends and dinner party companions in other fields.

    (I’m not saying it’s the most important reason behind their decision, and perhaps it’s not even conscious, but it will be in there somewhere.)

  6. But what Canute did was to demonstrate to his toadying acolites that he *couldn’t* hold back the tide.

  7. To be fair try the court – their job is to determine what the law says may or may not happen.

    That the law is an ass is obvious, but if that’s what the law says, well then, that’s what they’ve got to rule.

    The correct people to winge at would be those who make the laws, but last time I checked they were too busy telling us the monster under bed would get us if we vote the wrong way in a referendum to do anything about changing stupid laws.

  8. The judgement went something like “And if having the law being called an ass is the price of upholding the law, so be it”.

    OK then: your back; your rod.

  9. “To be fair try the court – their job is to determine what the law says may or may not happen.

    That the law is an ass is obvious, but if that’s what the law says, well then, that’s what they’ve got to rule.”

    I don’t know what the actual law says in this case, but there seems to be an awful lot of interpretation going on.

  10. The job of the “Supreme Court” (which means that it is supreme *over other courts*) is to make a definitive interpretation of the law as it applies to that particular case.
    @ puzzled
    Yes, Lord Toulson’s minority view was a better analogy for Canute’s than the majority: the internet is like the tide coming in. IMHO a serious student should look at his minority opinions as a signpost to the future (this guy is seriously bright: took ‘A’ levels at 15 and could have gone to Cambridge then but decided it was better to wait until he was 17, a potential Denning).

  11. Not just what the law is, but also, is the law itself valid or unconstitutional.

    https://www.supremecourt.uk/

    ‘The Supreme Court is the final court of appeal in the UK for civil cases, and for criminal cases from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It hears cases of the greatest public or constitutional importance affecting the whole population. We are open on weekdays from 0930 to 1630.’ Restrooms on the second floor.

  12. So Much For Subtlety

    monoi – “Are those gender neutral?”

    Well it is full of men wearing frocks and wigs …..

Leave a Reply

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