MoneySuperInjunction.com

That website may not yet exist, but if we carry on the path which rich society and gossip is descending down, I give it two years before the website is fully operational. The TV adverts will obviously feature Omid Djalili, where he goes about the World bothering celebrities and telling them that they could have gotten a better deal on their Super Injunction if they had visited MoneySuperInjunction.com first. The website will compare different injunction formulas possible and help the user by suggesting the option that is the best value for money to give them the privacy they want. A service provided completely for free too due to advertising funding.

It has been an odd week or so in which, for once, the UK media has not been able to publish gossip about a footballer and reality TV show having forbidden sex, when everyone else has been talking about it. Twitter was revelling in having 'one up' on the media and the law, so everyone was Tweeting the name 'Ryan Giggs'. 70,000 people broke the law by talking about it. One of which was me, and others included people I follow. It was just a lot of people just figuratively sticking two fingers up at The Sun newspaper and shaking their wrists with pleasure at the law. It was a beautiful, yet confusing moment for British society. If Twitter existed in the 80's, it would have been used in exactly the same way.

I blogged quite a while ago about having Freedom of Speech so long as you keep your mouth shut and remain politically correct at all times, and this follows on from that point and how Twitter has a huge influence upon that. In response to Paul Chambers Tweeting "FUCK! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!", he was arrested and thousands of Twitterer's sent the same message in protest. One anonymous person Tweeted "Footballer Ryan Giggs had an extramarital affair with Big Brother star Imogen Thomas which lasted for 7 months. #superinjunction" and it went relatively unnoticed for a little while, and the user went on, power sick, and started Tweeting nonsense speculation Tweet's about other celebrities. Anyway, the first Tweet was true, and it soon started spreading.

Once it had spread and gained enough momentum, The Sun appealed for the injunction to be overturned, which was rejected. Twitterer's continued to spread the news and made jokes. Ryan Giggs got angry. The media became irritated. Politicians became irritated. Twitterer's continued to revel and because so many people Tweeted the news, it became impossible to impose the law, but it continued. Eventually, Lib Dem MP John Hemming boiled and spilt the news by abusing/using (it depends on your own opinion) his powers within the Houses of Commons. The Speaker had a mini rant, and the media where finally in ecstasy at now being able to report the news. However, the injunction still remains in place, so it is technically illegal to report it even though, in practice, it isn't illegal because it was mentioned in the Houses of Common. Geddit? Yeah, the law is like a cryptic puzzle. No one has an idea where anyone stands.

There was a great piece of TV in the early morning on Daybreak in the week, in which Max Clifford, media guru/obscene profanity (depends on your opinion), was quizzed for his thoughts on the super injunction fiasco. This is the man who gave the media Jade Goody by the way, so we can agree he has an extremely warped sense of righteousness. He stated that this culture was very worrying because it meant his clients [and therefore him] couldn't make any money. He didn't say that directly, but it was as implicit as stating that you didn't know the sex of your future child whilst winking and holding a pink balloon saying 'It's a girl'.

He did also make one point which I think lends this story a deliciously ironic twist: if Ryan Giggs had never put up an injunction, the story would have never come out due to Imogen Thomas agreeing to keep it secret. The intrigue of the injunction is what led to the story actually coming out and making Giggs a target for matrimonial hate. No-one wanted to publish it in the first place. That, for me, just makes the story a lot sweeter to enjoy.

Now, I wander into the debate of whether Super Injunctions are right or wrong, and I am sitting on the fence about it: I cannot decide what my overall opinion is on this humiliating failure. Both sides of the argument, I think, include very good points. The main points against the injunctions are that a) only the very rich can afford to get them; and b) if you're going to be in the public eye and you don't want people to know you have sex with hookers, and then you shouldn't have sex with hookers. There are also points for the use of injunctions that are a) why is it any of our business; and b) it gives the family a chance to recover and stay together if the media don't shout their private news in big black letters on the front of every newspaper. The case of Andrew Marr springs straight into mind.

A few years ago, with a fellow female Journalist, Marr had an affair and thought that maybe a child she had conceived might have been due to their shenanigans. The injunction was put in place and Marr's marriage had time to heal and survive and DNA testing proved the child not to be his. The injunction stopped speculation by the media and didn't tear the family apart, but it does appear hypocritical when he is grilling politicians on their scandalous private lives, when he himself has one and won't share it. That is something which Ian Hislop campaigned for and was his point every time he was interviewed on the news the day the story hit the media. The story illustrates the good and the bad of super injunctions.

On the whole however, I do totally disagree with the use of super injunctions, as both an aspiring Journalist and a member of the naïve public. I know the Conservatives are in power, but it doesn't necessarily mean we have to live in a time when the rich can do whatever they wish because they are rich. Who wants to live in a society as blatantly biased as that? David Cameron was quick to jump on the band wagon and condemn the use of super injunctions. He is a PR genius, so when he is becoming unpopular due to so many U-turns on the NHS reforms for example, by agreeing with the public on matters such as super injunctions, he seems like a good guy.

If this isn't kept under control, where are we going to end up as a society? Will people get injunctions out to keep the results of sporting events quiet, so that no-one can report the results of the football match between Chelsea and West Ham until Match of the Day is on in the evening? Will BBC 3 be able to get injunctions out every time they produce another horrid 'comedy' aimed at youth to prevent people saying how rubbish it was? Is it possible to get a super injunction to prevent parents from telling their children that Santa isn't real?  Could it be possible for a man to get an injunction out to stop ex girlfriends from revealing the length of his penis? Will chocolate manufactures be able to get a super injunction out to stop people from knowing that chocolate may contain nuts? You see, if it gets out of control, it could get dangerous and people with nut allergies could die!

I don't think we'll stop this super injunction society any time soon, and if we could, we wouldn't be allowed to know how. I think maybe we should slap a time limit on how long a super injunction lasts. A judge should say "Sure, you can have an injunction. But, in 6 months time, the news will come out", and Mr Sex-obsessed Actor will say yes as it gives him chance to sort his life out, and all is well in the end. I mean, this might be the only way to save children with nut allergies! Don't be a bastard and let them die!