Supersized super injunctions

By April 28, 2011Uncategorized

We live in a society where we can supersize almost anything nowadays. If you’re rich, famous and in danger of your dirty laundry being aired in public, you can now supersize your legal request for privacy in the form of a super injunction. But what gives celebrities and those in the public eye the right to keep their bad behaviour secret just because they don’t want us to know what they are really like?

In the last couple of weeks a footballer, an actor and two TV personalities have all taken out gagging orders to prevent details of their private lives becoming public knowledge.

These are people who may be regarded as role models, so preserving their image and covering up any whiff of scandal might seem like a good move. But with judges handing out super injunctions as if they were sweeties, morality seems to have gone out the window – do we really believe this is being done to protect loved ones or it about protecting the individual’s fame and ability to continue to accrue a fortune?

Rewind back to 2008 when super injunctions weren’t as ‘fashionable’ and respected political journalist Andrew Marr took out a gagging order, against a colleague with whom he had an affair, in order to protect his family’s privacy. 

Had the recent rise in super injunctions not been so rapid, we’d have probably never have known what Marr had done although it was common knowledge amongst his colleagues; interestingly, his reason for outing himself was that he believes the use of the injunction are “running out of control”. 

But one thing’s for sure, the use of super injunctions reinforces the value people in the public eye place on their reputations. All it takes is one moment of madness for it to become tarnished and livelihoods are crushed. So you can see why the rich and famous reach for an injunction in order to prevent their family’s livelihood. 

But next time they fancy a bit of slap and tickle, they should stop to think about their family and if the consequences of their potential actions could lead to another trip to the courts – this time for a divorce.