It quite clearly is true, it names the judge and the details of the order. I doubt many media organisations would have the guts to print a made up story about Eady.
But here he goes, making up his own laws again. He does need to be kicked into touch, he's on some crazed kind of power trip.
Look at the injunction I linked to there's far more detail.
The pictured document is extremely vague it doesn't specify which street, so it applies to all streets and only to people who've taken her picture in 2011?
Why is the Judge's name handwritten not typed, why are claimant & defendent marked as 'intended', why is the stamp different, why no contact details?
It extends to other areas including friends and families homes too, so basically she can travel anywhere in a blacked out car and walk from the car to the house without having her picture taken. So really unless she's actually out in the shops or somewhere completely public (which seems very unlikely) or at a public event then she cannot be photographed
Where does it specify any of that in that annoymous image?
Why is the Judge's name hand written and wouldn't people need to know where she lived to ensure they comply with the order and it's so vague..."in the street" all streets?
Where does it specify any of that in that annoymous image?
I think that the one on twitter is off a lamppost as it's reported that they were put up in her street, you can tell it's laminated and it was off a journalists twitter account - @journotom
Legal terms are usually pretty watertight and, as you say, in the street sounds a bit vague.
A street would be described as: Any roadway in an urban area, owned and maintained by the municipality for public use. A private road cannot be a street.
I really hope she does bore off to Spain with Ashley Cole fed up with reading stories about poor hard done by cheryl if thids is true I hope when she does decide to get back into showbiz they just totally ignore her lets see her try and get a silly injunction like that in spain
I think that the one on twitter is off a lamppost as it's reported that they were put up in her street, you can tell it's laminated and it was off a journalists twitter account - @journotom
If I believe what he says there are another 6 pages. Are they only outside her former home?
Is her 'former' home Ashley's?
Aren't they going to have put them oustide every home she might have....thus drawing attention to the fact she is there?
Outside every resturant, shop, clonic irrigation clinic she might visit?
It's not an injunction as such, that's just a media word nowadays, it's an anti-harassment order like the ones Lily Allen and Amy Winehouse have taken out.
The Daily Star's interpretation of it is OTT, it is not a blanket order, it only applies to her house and the street, hence why they've been tied to the lampposts on said street.
It's not an injunction as such, that's just a media word nowadays, it's an anti-harassment order like the ones Lily Allen and Amy Winehouse have taken out.
The Daily Star's interpretation of it is OTT, it is not a blanket order, it only applies to her house and the street, hence why they've been tied to the lampposts on said street.
Former home could be Hadley wood? Which makes no sense really if noone is living there. It sounds like ashleys place with my lazy deduction skills.. Unless in Hadley kimba is still there and they are close friends...
It's not an injunction as such, that's just a media word nowadays, it's an anti-harassment order like the ones Lily Allen and Amy Winehouse have taken out.
The Daily Star's interpretation of it is OTT, it is not a blanket order, it only applies to her house and the street, hence why they've been tied to the lampposts on said street.
I'm calling BS on this and the telling part of the article is here
The order bans “the defendants” – anyone who has taken her picture this year – from following Cheryl “whether by car, van, motorcycle, or by any means howsoever”, or approaching within 100 metres of her home.
It sounds to me like she is sick of being hounded by the paps and press and has taken steps to have a bit of privacy. The article tries to make out like it is her fans she is targeting but it's not. They say that the poor fans who are camped outside her house, worried about her and wanting to take a snap of her are somehow being dissed but seriously, if you were a fan of her, WTF would you be camped outside her house wanting to take a photo of her? A fan is supposed to be someone who respects and supports someone. It shows a toatal lack of respect for someone if all you want to do is camp on their doorstep and get a photo. To me, that sounds like money grabbing, celeb spotting etc but not actual support.
I don't like Cheryl and I will talk about her public appearances on here and not feel guilty. By that I mean the TV shows, radio and magazine interviews she choses to do. As far as I am concerned, everything that she choses to do is far game for judging. However, I don't think it's right that either the media or "fans" are camped outside her house. I hope this injuction is the start of putting some form of normality on the way celebs are treated. What they do in public is fair game, what they do in private, as long as they aren't endangering anyone, isn't.
Yep, you're right, it is the most telling part. It also (if correct) gives a way round this stupid rule.
It only applies to “the defendants” – anyone who has taken her picture this year.
Which means if you haven't taken a pic of her this year, you can take one quite legally. New Paps please!
Also, it is insane because it means if you are her next door neighbour & took a pic of her, you're not allowed to go back to your own home. :rolleyes:
You said '' She knew what being in the public light would entail''. Nobody can fully ever know what life in the public eye is like. Did Princess Diana truly know how her life would be with all eyes watching her, paparazzi chasing her down the street? No she didn't.
Didn't she? How do you know? Did she tell you this herself?
Anyway, I'm pretty certain she would have had a fairly good idea. Anyone seriously planning to become a member of the Royal Family WILL have to have that "talk" whether they want to or not. Kate Middleton said she was made FULLY AWARE of what becoming a member of the family would mean for her. You get TRAINING for that kind of stuff. They PREPARE you for it.
Cheryl Cole would have had people EXPLAIN to her what being in the public eye would mean for her & how it would change things. If she doesn't want to be in the public eye, she knows what to do about it, doesn't she? No more press interviews, TV appearances, etc.
Is there a reason the stamp is different to this one?
And why are the Claiment & Defendants marked as 'Intended' ?
It looks fake. And the word "Intended" NEVER gets placed before Claimant or Respondant.
As a trained Legal Secretary and Administration Assistant (having worked as both in a solicitors) I can tell you that would have never made it out of the office before going through the shredder.
Didn't she? How do you know? Did she tell you this herself?
Anyway, I'm pretty certain she would have had a fairly good idea. Anyone seriously planning to become a member of the Royal Family WILL have to have that "talk" whether they want to or not. Kate Middleton said she was made FULLY AWARE of what becoming a member of the family would mean for her. You get TRAINING for that kind of stuff. They PREPARE you for it.
Cheryl Cole would have had people EXPLAIN to her what being in the public eye would mean for her & how it would change things. If she doesn't want to be in the public eye, she knows what to do about it, doesn't she? No more press interviews, TV appearances, etc.
She noted it in many interviews. So please don't act stupid.
You can put things in capital letters all you like because you are clearly missing the point. No amount of preparation can prepare you for life in the public eye. What training could you possibly receive? Do they sit you down and make you watch instructional videos and you fill in forms like you would in a new workplace? Who exactly gave her training?
I doubt very much people sat her down and said it would be like this or it would be like that because they would have had no idea what level of exposure she would have had or what would exactly happen. Things aren't clear cut.
If you court publicity for your own gain then you have to accept the consequenses of being in the public eye and take the rough with the smooth
I don't think people should expect to have it both ways,
She noted it in many interviews. So please don't act stupid.
You can put things in capital letters all you like because you are clearly missing the point. No amount of preparation can prepare you for life in the public eye. What training could you possibly receive? Do they sit you down and make you watch instructional videos and you fill in forms like you would in a new workplace? Who exactly gave her training?
I doubt very much people sat her down and said it would be like this or it would be like that because they would have had no idea what level of exposure she would have had or what would exactly happen. Things aren't clear cut.
I agree with you. They do explain to people who are about to be thrust into the public eye what will happen, but no one can possibly prepare for the kind of onslaught that ensues in some cases. This is especially true for Princess Diana in my opinion.
Comments
Look at the injunction I linked to there's far more detail.
The pictured document is extremely vague it doesn't specify which street, so it applies to all streets and only to people who've taken her picture in 2011?
Why is the Judge's name handwritten not typed, why are claimant & defendent marked as 'intended', why is the stamp different, why no contact details?
Where does it specify any of that in that annoymous image?
Good call, could be I guess.
I think that the one on twitter is off a lamppost as it's reported that they were put up in her street, you can tell it's laminated and it was off a journalists twitter account - @journotom
Legal terms are usually pretty watertight and, as you say, in the street sounds a bit vague.
A street would be described as: Any roadway in an urban area, owned and maintained by the municipality for public use. A private road cannot be a street.
If I believe what he says there are another 6 pages. Are they only outside her former home?
Is her 'former' home Ashley's?
Aren't they going to have put them oustide every home she might have....thus drawing attention to the fact she is there?
Outside every resturant, shop, clonic irrigation clinic she might visit?
Explain how that is proof?
Couldn't it be knocked up in Photoshop/Word?
@TM_XFactor - this is the twitter page.
So someone completely and utterly unknown to you, not even someone you met in a pub told you it was proof.
Well here's a twitter account claiming to be the author of the newspaper story and image provider.
When was the last time an injunction was found attached to a lampost?
Goes to lay down in a darkened room.
The Daily Star's interpretation of it is OTT, it is not a blanket order, it only applies to her house and the street, hence why they've been tied to the lampposts on said street.
It's just to stop scenes like this on the roads outside: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/5/1/1241211305345/A-sunbed-being-delivered--001.jpg
That's fine, everyone deserves some sort of privacy and I think the immediate area around one's house should be protected.
Thanks, now it makes sense.
Can we take an injuinction against Biffa?
It only applies to “the defendants” – anyone who has taken her picture this year.
Which means if you haven't taken a pic of her this year, you can take one quite legally. New Paps please!
Also, it is insane because it means if you are her next door neighbour & took a pic of her, you're not allowed to go back to your own home. :rolleyes:
Didn't she? How do you know? Did she tell you this herself?
Anyway, I'm pretty certain she would have had a fairly good idea. Anyone seriously planning to become a member of the Royal Family WILL have to have that "talk" whether they want to or not. Kate Middleton said she was made FULLY AWARE of what becoming a member of the family would mean for her. You get TRAINING for that kind of stuff. They PREPARE you for it.
Cheryl Cole would have had people EXPLAIN to her what being in the public eye would mean for her & how it would change things. If she doesn't want to be in the public eye, she knows what to do about it, doesn't she? No more press interviews, TV appearances, etc.
It looks fake. And the word "Intended" NEVER gets placed before Claimant or Respondant.
As a trained Legal Secretary and Administration Assistant (having worked as both in a solicitors) I can tell you that would have never made it out of the office before going through the shredder.
IT'S FAKE
She noted it in many interviews. So please don't act stupid.
You can put things in capital letters all you like because you are clearly missing the point. No amount of preparation can prepare you for life in the public eye. What training could you possibly receive? Do they sit you down and make you watch instructional videos and you fill in forms like you would in a new workplace? Who exactly gave her training?
I doubt very much people sat her down and said it would be like this or it would be like that because they would have had no idea what level of exposure she would have had or what would exactly happen. Things aren't clear cut.
I don't think people should expect to have it both ways,