I’m not even certain that I can write this, without possible consequences – but, since it is throughout the papers now – why shouldn’t I?

While I am not a fan of the media interfering with peoples’ lives, if you are in the limelight and you do the ‘dirty’, should a ‘star’ be able to engineer what gets put out in the media? Surely, if you are in the limelight, then you should attempt to stay faithful, as let’s face it we all reap what we sow and is that not the way it should be?

So, who exactly is at fault for this situation, the celeb that did the dirty deed and wanted it hidden? Or, the law firm that thought that they could control the thoughts and voices of the people/journalists? Or, is it much more complex?

Usually it is much more complex and I think this is the case here. The Human Rights bill which was enforced in 1998, has meant that it can be abused by law firms that claim to be representing the privacy of their client and their family. Since the law was enforced, over 30 such injunctions have been granted by the High Court and it would seem the celebs, of course, talk to each other. So, rather than keeping it in their trousers, respectively, they simply use the same law firm to protect their privacy.

So what is an injunction and how does it work? Injunctions, are basically orders issued by the High Court, on pain of criminal proceedings, to keep people quiet and stop details of an affair (for example) coming out. Firstly, an emergency injunction is applied for secretly to the High Court, on the grounds that if the story were to leak out to the public, it would damage the privacy of whoever is involved and their family.

Once the emergency injunction expires, (usually a week), then the person and the newspapers must return to court to argue the capacity to publish the story. This continues, with a further court date in the future, if the injunction is extended. Very few stories continue with a 3rd date and a future debate in court – it just isn’t worth the hassle in most cases. Therefore, the celebrity behind the story continues with their reputation seemingly intact. However, is this morally right? The celebrity’s reputation remains intact, largely for their own self-serving commercial properties, rather than any reason connected with protecting their family, from what I can see. If they were thinking so much of their families after the dirty deed, why not think about them before they did it?

As always, the people I feel sorry for are the families of those involved. In a way, I feel sorry for Giggsy, because I really don’t believe he ever wanted, or indeed thought his infidelity would be the case to highlight all other cases. Or, indeed become a case to debate the power of free speech. However, just because you are rich and famous and behaving badly, does not mean that you should be able to use the law to cover up your failings. If, as a celeb, you do not want to get caught doing the dirty on your loved ones, it’s really simple, think about them first and just DON’T DO IT!

More celebs should stay home and play uk bingo - it might be safer all round really!!