[Omah]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-sto...5875-23073418/

A well known “member of the entertainment industry” who admitted adultery with a “colleague” is the latest to win an injunction barring publication of “private information”.

A High Court judge last month refused his bid to have his identity kept secret.

But a temporary ban on naming him was put in place pending his appeal application.

And yesterday three Appeal Court judges unanimously granted his wish to remain anonymous pending the case.

His move was supported by his wife and the other woman, who is also married.

Name 'em, name 'em all ..... if they "wus wukkin klas" they couldn't hide - only their money protects them - name and shame 'em .....

[Omah]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13136831

The father-of-two, referred to in the judgement as ETK, sought the injunction against the Sunday newspaper after journalists learnt that he had begun an affair in November 2009 with his colleague, referred to as X.

ETK's wife had become suspicious and confronted him. He admitted the affair - and then promised to end it for the sake of their teenage children.

However, Lord Justice Ward said the couple's attempts at reconciliation led to problems at work for the former lovers.

He said: "The appellant told [the employers] that he would prefer in an ideal world not to have to see her at all and that one or other should leave but both accepted that their working commitments did not then make that possible," said the judge.

"In December 2010 their employers informed X that her services would no longer be required, explaining publicly that it was a convenient moment to make this change."

Another female party sh*t on .....

[Omah]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13158087

He argued that Parliament, not judges, should decide on the balance between press freedom and privacy. The courts are using human rights legislation "to deliver a sort of privacy law", he warned. His comments follow a number of recent injunctions which have banned the identification of celebrities.

On Wednesday, High Court judge Mr Justice Eady agreed to issue a "contra mundum" order - effectively a worldwide ban - in the case of a man who sought to prevent publication of material about his private life.

Such orders were previously used to stop the publication of details about the killers of James Bulger, when a court ruled that there was a "strong possibility" that their lives would be at risk if they were identified.

A contra mundum order is intended to apply forever, and applies to everyone - as opposed to forbidding the publication of details by a specific newspaper or journalist.

Giving his reasons for making the order, sought by the claimant at a hearing on 6 April, Mr Justice Eady said the High Court had the power to stop anyone and everyone from publishing material to protect an individual's rights.

PR consultant Max Clifford said: "The privacy of the rich and famous seems to be exactly what the courts are determined to achieve. What we've got in this country now is a privacy law that wasn't brought in by Parliament but the judges have decided what they want and that's what they've achieved."

IMO, the newspapers should "publish and be damned" .....