Superinjunctions - BDSM'er outed (79)

I wouldn't call either of those panic.

In Khan's case, distress perhaps, or annoyance.

The rest is definitely not panic. If you haven't been served notice of an injunction you can't by definition be panicking about possibly having broken it.

Aut disce aut discede. Manet sors tertia caedi

True but if you can not tell which is a real injunction and which is not,because of false claims online. How can you avoid being on the wrong side of the law?

http://empressm7.uboot.com/ http://www.socialkink.com/empressmartine Vampire, pro/lifestyle ts dom/switch.Ageplay mummy/aunty/AB,medical play,domestic,energy, outdoor specialist."Awsome! But whose's look after the country's security? The FBI pull double shifts!"

Sure most of us are not celebrities, but win the lottery, Family member gets famous, work in a position of power and then the press will be sniffing at your door.

“Many of life's failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up.”

Edited 10 May 11, 10:29 AM by Gentledom14

Quoted for the irony

Zen S&M: The sound of one hand slapping.
'()_/)
(>'.'<)
(")_(") < MINE!

How many times do you need to be told? You cannot break an injunction if notice of it has not been served on you.

However, repeating any claims on IC you read elsewhere on the internet may put you in violation of IC's AUP.

So if you don't want to get into trouble, don't repeat them. It's that simple.

Aut disce aut discede. Manet sors tertia caedi

the entire process - sex sells, as both currency and commodity; prodommes, prostitutes, newspapers et al etc...

privacy is negligible and damage management isn't even a consideration

What a sad and unpleasant world view. It is actually possible for famous people to have normal human weaknesses. Is it really such a good thing to be gloating over them? Do you think it helps the "victims" of those weaknesses, the husbands/wives and children, parents and others, to have their families private problems splashed all over the press, usually in inaccurate, sensationalised and out of context form, for everyone they know to read and possibly laugh about? Is such cruel treatment a justified price for the crime of being good at football or singing?

Free speech is hugely important. Far too important to be used so irresponsibly that it is being put at risk. The press have only themselves to blame for the way the law is developing. If the press complaints commission (run by the press) had made even the slightest effort over the years to distinguish between important stories that are in the public interest and cruel tittle tattle that sells papers they wouldn't find themselves in the position they are in now.

Remember the scandal of pics being shown in foreign publications of diana! never shown here but shown around the world and l bet can be found on the net...

But even so what they do in the bedroom as long as all consensual then its no ones business but those who it affects.

The fact is if you seek to be in the public eye and want to create a certain image, then you know there will be those who will try to tarnish that image...

The sad thing is its the "industry" and the elite that ruin the persons chances of being employed again as the ordinary person in the street these days couldn't give a toss what others do in the bedroom...

Don't make them a priority, when they only make you an option...

I wish I had enough money to spare to get a SI.......not that I need a SI I just wish I had that much money to waste.

For an historic perceptive the official form the SI is the D notice and its predeceases.

In 1936 we British were not thought grown up enough to know what was going on with Eddy 8 and Mrs S yet the rest of the world's press it was front page.