Dear Brenda,
The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the injunction banning the naming of a celebrity involved in an alleged extra-marital relationship should stay in place, but everyone outside England & Wales seems to be able to “read all about it”. Is it fair that the people of Harold should be denied this knowledge? Do these things even make sense in a boundary-free internet age?
My husband says he hasn’t the slightest interest in this kind of nonsense and we should leave the poor chap alone, but I’m furious that the rich can effectively gag the free press.
I’m at my wit’s end.
Enraged, Harold
.
Dear Enraged,
Well, Sue, it seems odd I suppose, that the story has been published in other countries, and yet we are not free to comment on it here in the Evening Harold, even though our server is in the USA, and we have overseas ownership.
But I have developed some sympathy for PJS over the past weeks.
Imagine your private letters were found and someone wanted to publish them because they mention certain events or fantasies that they found interesting, but you’d rather keep to yourself. You’d want the law to be on your side, right?
Or imagine you took some snaps of yourself becoming aroused to send to your husband while he was on an overseas business trip. Just a few harmless naughty pics of your hands cupping your ample breasts, perhaps a picture of you raising your titty to your mouth so your beautiful pink tongue can lick at your stiffening nipple. As you get turned on, imagining your husband’s love pump hardening in his tight white boxer-briefs, your hand reaches into your panties and you realise that you’re already getting wet with excitement. Each pic becomes more daring than the last – a cheeky close-up of you pressing the vibrating end of your favourite toy against your moist flaps, the next one showing the glistening shaft sliding in to your love tunnel…you get the idea. You’ve done nothing wrong, but does anyone but you and your husband have the right to see them? What if some creep wanted to show them to your children? They’d be locked up, surely.
Maybe another example – imagine you, your husband and a friend were curious about three-way golden showers and scatology. There’s no law against it. Why shouldn’t you? And say you wanted to keep a memento of your fun and games for later viewing. Perfectly natural. But wait…that video footage of you defecating on your friend’s body and smearing it over her heaving breasts as she urinated into your husband’s mouth…what if that video footage fell into the hands of someone who threatened to screen it at your daughter’s wedding? You’d try to stop them. And quite right too! It’s her big day and nobody should try to upstage her.
If PJS wants to limit the amount of media records his children may find in later life, then it’s understandable he’d try to do that. He is well-known, but that doesn’t mean the public has a right to know all the ins and outs. The fact that he can’t stop the story being published in Scotland is irrelevant to his wishes to keep this out of the press in England where his children live.
Only this morning, as I was in the shower with my super-hot Japanese girlfriend, Akiko, soaping her firm, pert breasts – we were saying that it was everyone’s right to have legal, private acts kept that way if they so wished. It’s up to me and Akiko how much we share, and if we prefer to draw a veil over our mud-wrestling threesomes with bald, slightly over-weight middle aged men within a three mile radius of us, then that is our decision, and we surely have the right to keep that to ourselves.
It’s true that in a way, I’m a bit of a local celebrity, with my column a firm fixture in this particular organ, and my career with Akiko performing our two-hander stage shows ‘The Vagina Dialogues’ and ‘Strictly Quim Dancing’.
But does that give the public a ‘right’ to know about the exhausted writhing knot of mud-soaked bodies our love-making becomes?
What level of fame or notoriety justifies publishing a person’s private life? Madonna-like fame? Heather Mills level? Pam Ayres? The woman off the Gold Blend advert?
My feeling is this is not about the public interest or the freedom of the press. This is about mocking celebrities we weren’t very fond of to start with, it’s about feeling a bit better about ourselves because someone else (richer, more famous) has been caught out and taken down a peg or two, and most of all it’s about jealousy, because deep down, don’t we all wish we had the freedom to slither against another well-oiled body or two in a paddling pool?…Just for one day?
So what do you think Sue? Shall I come round later?
Brenda
Are you curious to try lube parties or hard core scat but are afraid the law won’t protect your privacy? Ask Brenda – Send your questions to the usual address or e-mail her now at SugarTits_69@ymail.com Or follow Brenda on Twitter – @RealSugarTits69
You must be logged in to post a comment.