Sun Lies About Sleb Injunction

Despite the names of the “Married Celebrity Parents” - one of whom has been involved in a threesome with two other people - being available online, and now in print in Scotland, Rupe’s downmarket troops at the Super Soaraway Currant Bun are still up in arms about the judicial decision to stop them naming the couple in England and Wales. The hacks are no desperate for attention that they have resorted to lying about it.

Why this should be has changed over the past week: at first, the Sun knew that this story would guarantee the sale of more papers and a significant uptick in clicks on its website. Then, as it became clear that there would be no exposé and therefore no extra sales, the campaign was if anything intensified - out of sheer vindictiveness. It was the Sun’s right to plaster this couple over the front page in order to score More And Bigger Sales Figures For Itself Personally Now, and woe betide anyone who got in the way.

And that is why the story is being flogged even a week after the event, with readers now being told “Och aye they know: Threesome gag celeb named in Scotland but we STILL can’t tell story”. No, the Murdoch doggies can’t even let their readers know which paper north of the border has published the names! And, so what?

So it’s Labour’s fault, that’s what: “The revelations are the latest hushed up by mega-rich celebrities using Article Eight of the European Convention of Human Rights - enshrined in British law by Labour in 1998”. The Sun would rather nobody had the right to privacy. It gets worse: one of the couple who gave the Sun the story has obligingly told the paper exactly what it wants to hear about those rotten foreign Human Rights.

I kid you not: “The sooner this ridiculous situation is sorted out the better. Let’s hope a British Bill of Rights comes out that takes precedence over European law, which English judges seem to be following … It is bizarre that this couple are allowed to use privacy law to silence a true story when they court publicity”. That could have been, and probably was, written for him. But it’s the editorial where the dishonesty line is crossed.

It tells “Yesterday a Scottish newspaper published the names of celebs who had used a court order in England to stop publication of details of an alleged affair … Yet we’re still not allowed to tell you … The details of what the celebs were up to is not the concern”. And to that I call bullshit. What they were up to is the Sun’s one and only concern.

Why did the paper want to run the story in the first place? Because of what the celebs were up to. There was zero public interest defence - it was just someone well-known that the Murdoch press has a grudge against. It was about vengeance and vindictiveness. The further claim in the editorial, “This can only lead to an abuse of power and crushing of freedom of the press” is therefore also bullshit. The only freedom the Murdoch doggies want is to lord it over everyone else in order to score a few more sales.

But the Sun wasn’t interested in the story of John Whittingdale and his dominatrix partner. That would be the same John Whittingdale who has the power to keep stalling on new press laws and to kick the BBC, which the Murdoch doggies hate. On the other hand, the Married Slebs have no such power. As Private Eye magazine might have said, “I wonder if the two are in any way connected? I think we should be told”. And so we should.