Its mad isnt it. If the newspapers had made it up - then yeah, sue. But even Cheryl admitted that he was a cheater. So he doesnt have a leg to stand on.
Following a case in December 2005 Mr Justice Eady decided the following...
(b) that disclosure of information of relationships with others can be protected even if this occurs in public and even if the other person asserts his/her right of free speech;
(c) that truth or falsity of the private information is not relevant;
Last year a high profile 'z' list celeb was able to obtain a retraction, £15,000 and costs by merely threatening a paper with this ruling.
The alleged 'untrue' story was then sold to a magazine by the 'z' lister.
I've been pointing this ruling out for sometime and it's only recently been picked by the media.
So claims about 'exclusive' revealations are more likely to be at the behest of a celeb or their agents, and we know agents like Max Clifford would never tell a lie for financial or publicity reasons.
Another example of how privacy laws are neutering the press... for once I agree with the Daily Mail editor and his recent comments about overreaching judges.
Soon the only stories about people in public life will be those approved by their publicists. This erodes the investigative powers of the press and thus diminishes one of our prime institutions.
Many showbiz interviews even by 'zzz' listers are already editorially controlled by the celeb or thir agents ie. they have final copy approval.
Having recently spoken to showbiz editors and writers of papers and gossip mags, I was astonished at their attitude.
The editors and writers seem quite happy to collude with the celebs and their agents to delude the public.
Comments
Following a case in December 2005 Mr Justice Eady decided the following...
Last year a high profile 'z' list celeb was able to obtain a retraction, £15,000 and costs by merely threatening a paper with this ruling.
The alleged 'untrue' story was then sold to a magazine by the 'z' lister.
I've been pointing this ruling out for sometime and it's only recently been picked by the media.
So claims about 'exclusive' revealations are more likely to be at the behest of a celeb or their agents, and we know agents like Max Clifford would never tell a lie for financial or publicity reasons.
Many showbiz interviews even by 'zzz' listers are already editorially controlled by the celeb or thir agents ie. they have final copy approval.
Having recently spoken to showbiz editors and writers of papers and gossip mags, I was astonished at their attitude.
The editors and writers seem quite happy to collude with the celebs and their agents to delude the public.
This doesn't surprise me one bit. It's all money and publicity at the end of the day.