And his bad hair .............

It could be any one of three girls.

I wonder what would happen if for example a newspaper printed "we are not allowed to reveal this celebrities identity, but here is a link to an internet site that reveals all" ?

Could I have a clue to the wealthy ex, please?

no chance, lets not go down that road, its windy!

They want to make money that wouldn't make them money. They aren't wanting to run this for altruistic reasons.

That's simply not true though .
If the person is fronting a campaign promoting safe sex and is happy to constantly push that agenda by funding it and raising funds AND naming it in his own honour then it's hypocritical of the person to be involved in an open marriage where one or other partner is NOT taking the very precautions that they are happy to lecture everyone else on .
I'm all for privacy in the normal circumstances , but sometimes those screaming and paying for privacy are being huge hypocrites . As in this case , in my opinion .
If the foundation wasn't involved then I'd say "So what ? It's worth a curtain twitch or two, but really their own business " .As it is I think they are HUGE hypocrites and those contributing or raising funds in their name can't be happy . Well I wouldn't be , that's for sure .

She often gets legless.

The uncle has only one brother who has three daughters, one of them lives in the area in question

What?? You crazy bro... that is exactly who you want to be promoting safe sex

Its ridiculous just one click on google and it brings up photos of the papers from Scotland that printed this!

http://pettygripes.com/discussion/10...tion-threesome

Its ridiculous just one click on google and it brings up photos of the papers from Scotland that printed this!

^ Not taking precautions? Do you have evidence or a link to back this up?

A sworn affidavit was provided by the person wishing to tell their story, stating that this was the case. This is sworn under oath and you are at risk of perjury, i.e. prison, if found to be false.

Great front page on tomorrow's (Friday's) Daily Mail with a celeb singer and his husband gushing about their perfect marriage. The timing is great......

This is the article.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...sed-David.html

It's genius, especially the last line...

All they've achieved with this is to paint massive targets on their backs for the press and pretty much everyone not living in a cave with no internet access knows anyway (probably including their children and/or their friends who they are supposedly so worried about embarrassing). Surely any celeb in future would see what a waste of money it is to do this.

This is why I bloody love our press. What a sad and boring World it would be without them. Bravo Mail!

I hate The Daily Mail but their front page today is just LOL

Isn't that the most wonderfully OTT piece ever?
Sadly the article is not accepting any reader comments.
Strange really, the Mail usually only does that with contentious and controversial stories, and this clearly isn't, seeing it's about such a loving and united family.

They would be hammered by the courts for contempt. Lawyers aren't daft. But a similar tack is sometimes used by the 'respectable broadsheets' - Telegraph, Times and Guardian - when the red tops come out with some scurrilous story about a celeb. The broadsheets are far too respectable to print the story, of course, but what they do is make a story out of the fact the the red tops are peddling dirt: 'Look at how low our press has sunk to offer this sort of smut to the reader', followed by all the details they deign to publish directly. Hypocrisy takes many forms.

Given the recent guide published by Popbitch (which subsequently disappeared) to how the newspapers try to get around a superinjunction, such as the one recently about whether the married couple can be named, one of whom engaged in a bout of extra-marital shaggig, and how they can hint at those who have taken out the superinjunction this from the Daily Mail makes interesting reading. Not saying they are the couple behind that particular superinjunction, of course, as there must be several million married couples in Britain where one engages in a spot of extramural shagging.

Ever thought that folk like you 'hating the Daily Mail' but thinking their front page is LOL is one reason way it (and the Sun) are still the most successful nationals in Britain and although like the rest of them their circulations are falling, they are falling slower than the others (i.e. Telegraph around 1.5 million 15 years ago, now around 500,000, though given its 'pragmatic' approach to selectively printing the news so as not to harm advertising coupled with the fact it has rid itself of many of its staff (especially professional sub-editors) and particularly the high-paid ones, it is now making more money than it was. Well!

Or half-way to being...?

All that the papers are doing is making the time of Leverson being implicated in full come closer. They were given one last chance by this Govt to self regulate. You've got to laugh really that their own obsession with stuff like this which is of no importance is going to lead to tighter laws/regulation. Labour / Lib Dems would have implemented the full recommendations of Leverson straight away.

It's the done thing on here to hate DM and then read and post links to it.

And yet DM readers are hardly going to be interested in an open (sexually) gay marriage...Sex scandals are so 1980s. Considering the couple recently got married after this episode....it is old news to be consigned to Internet history.

The DM just don't like to follow court rulings, maybe privacy laws like the French have are the future for UK publications....