 |
By *arry247Couple
over a year ago
Wakefield |
"So we cannot find out the name of some celeb who had a 3some. Does anyone care anyway?
Also should we on Fab be celabrating? I for one like my privacy."
No we should not be celebrating.
The super injunction is beyond most ordinary people and is therefore a law that only benefits the rich.
That does not mean we think it is right for such names to be published but law to be just has to apply to everyone not just to those who can afford High Court costs |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andeman OP Man
over a year ago
bedforshire |
Thats a fair point justice must me universal or its not justice.
But if a new privacy law has been invented by this ruling. Than as result of prsedent it should be accessable in the lower cheaper courts. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Anyone know what celeb it was?! PMs most accepted
Tried but your filters won't allow...but you could pm me  "
Thanks
And if anyone in Scotland can confirm what I have heard PM me please  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ildt123Man
over a year ago
Huddersfield |
While the injunction is daft as most of the world know them. I also think the principle is sort of right. Why should someone's sexual behaviour 8 or 9 years ago be reported to the world just because they are famous. I take the point about it only applying to the rich but then it wouldn't be front page news if your weren't rich n famous. Worst sort of lazy gutter journalism if you ask me |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"He's only famous by default "
....on account of his other half. ....
The names are freely available on the USA National Enquirer site via the dark web.....download a browser.....its out there for all to see with an immense underwhelming sense of disappointment when you find out. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Alright...here it is......it was that guy with the other guy....they have named him as....whatshismame......and the other guy who had the bareback threesome with the other guys and the paddling pool full of baby oil was 'that bloke'......clear? Hope I don't get into trouble.
Or as I said before. ..look it up on the dark web. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
I'm sure I read a thread like this a few weeks ago. Then another about a really old super injunction story.