In British comedy, especially satire as practised by the late Peter Cook and co., the judge is commonly portrayed as a senile old fool out of touch with modern times and quite often reality itself, but it is not just the judges that are being held up for mockery this week, it is the whole British legal system.
A Court of Appeal judge allowed an injunction sought by PJS and although the couple’s identities were revealed on Wednesday by an American newspaper British media outlets remain banned from publishing the names.
But the British court’s ruling has been mocked, with critics saying it has made “an ass out of the law” as the celebrities’ names were revealed scores of times on Twitter and social media.
On Friday, the man who had the threesome with the top entertainer’s partner told The Sun: “The whole thing is absolutely ridiculous.
“We have been threatened with perjury, contempt of court and prison – all for telling the truth about this threesome.
“We have had endless calls and emails from the star’s lawyers, and even had a threatening letter hand-delivered letter through our door.
“The famous couple don’t deny that it happened. But they have used the courts to cover up what the partner has done in a way they should not be used.
As a UK resident, I could be fined and possibly even jailed for contempt of court if I were to reveal who this “celebrity couple” are, SO I WILL NOT DO SO, but our American readers simply have to go to their local news-stand, pick-up a copy of the most scurrilous weekly tabloid and the scandal is there for all to see.
Having had my curiosity piqued by the injunction itself (as the “Streisand effect” could have predicted would happen), I went directly to Google and within a few minutes was looking at the headline that was being otherwise denied to British residents, my reaction at the scandal itself could best be described as “meh“.
If the allegations were both damaging and untrue, then perhaps an injunction would be understandable, but it appears that the allegations are substantially true. The reason that the injunction is being upheld is allegedly to “protect the couples young children” (aged 5 and 3 respectively).
I have no problem with the “celebrity couple” having sexual intercourse with any number of consenting adults of either sex, but I do object to this abuse of the British legal establishment to shield what is essentially the dirty laundry of their private lives from public view.
Throughout this blog posting, I have avoided mentioning the couple concerned so that I am not in contempt of court*, but I have nothing but contempt for any court that supports this sort of draconian 19th century bullshit.
* - as well as the fact that to reveal their names would be an abuse of Cats hospitality, which I respect.
PLEASE DO NOT NAME THE “CELEBRITY COUPLE” IN QUESTION, ANY COMMENTS DOING SO WILL BE REDACTED OR DELETED (AS APPROPRIATE)