We have whinged so long and so competently that the Daily Fail and the extra informative Sunday edition merely makes up its stories – when it is not nicking them from bloggers that is – that today’s front page story represents a change of heart on its editorial policy.

The front page special features an unnamed journalist, who has been threatened with jail for writing something which can’t be mentioned, which revealed the name of someone who can’t be mentioned, who took legal action which can’t be referred to, to prevent the newspapers reporting on something which he would prefer his wife not to know about.

They might just as well have published the template and invited punters to fill in the gaps from knowledge gleaned on the internet.

£1.50p and you get to write your own ‘news’ paper……..

They might as well give up now!

John B May 23, 2011 at 20:44

Isn’t this simply Max Clifford style publicity?

Rightwinggit May
23, 2011 at 13:30

What’s all the fannying about for, Ryan Giggs was named in the dago and
mick papers last week!

Rex May 23, 2011 at 09:42

So what would be the position if you write an article about someone who had
an injunction but you (genuinely) didn’t know about the injunction and your
guesswork happened to be spot on???

Under the UK judges interpretation of EU ‘uman rights laws you should not
write or speculate about anyone in case they have taken an injunction out I
guess.

Freedom of speech!!!!

Eleanor May 22, 2011 at 19:21

Does anyone actually care?

Anoraknophobia
May 23, 2011 at 11:54

Not until they try and cover it up.

Clarissa May 23,
2011 at 12:01

I think the answer is that no-one cared until such time as we found out
that some knowledge, however trivial, has been hidden from us. All those
with super-injunctions have done is invoke the Streisand effect and as a
consequence some of those with them are now reaping the whirlwind.

If they hadn’t bothered then – certainly for ‘celebrities’ – we’d have
generally shrugged our shoulders, said what an idiot, forgotten about it and
the whole thing would all have been yesterday’s chip-paper.

This furore has helped drag the subject to the forefront (literally in
one case) of the press and the public’s attention and, whilst attention is
focused on the personal lives of a few footballers, there are (allegedly)
super-injunctions out there which cover up criminal behaviour rather then
just gossip.

Who knows, mayhap this will do something positive about the secrecy
surrounding our host’s favourite bugbears: the Family Courts and the Court
of Protection.

microdave May 22, 2011 at 15:36

But surely the mere mention of all those “unmentionables” should not have
been mentioned?

Furor Teutonicus
May 22, 2011 at 12:56

It is always a “slow news day” for the Mail, when Paris Hilton, or some
queer footballer, or other, does not go for a shit.

THEN people BUY the “newspaper”, and THEN the “Gutmensch” (“Do gooder” and
“P.C” scum) try and tell us the majority of the general public are NOT thick
bastards.

JuliaM May 22,
2011 at 12:12

Heh!

So, we can’t know the footballer’s name, and now we also can’t know the
journalist who named the footballer who we aren’t supposed to name?

My head hurts!

SadButMadLad
May 22, 2011 at 23:15

Ahh, but over 40% of the public already know all the details.

Celebrities and other public figures need to be sent on a training
course. One of the items on the course would be to learn about the Striesand
Effect.

Woman on a
Raft May 22, 2011 at 09:21

Ouch!