Off his rocker

[Jumper]

I can't understand why PJS, is still trying to stop the media in the
England and Wales revealing his sexual antics.

The barrister representing for PJS said the "media storm" would be
"devastating" for his client and for his children, should the injunction
be lifted.

I would say the cat is well out of the bag. Anyone with an internet
connection or, even listening to the good old grapevine knows who it is.
Its looks like PJS is showing his age in, not knowing how the modern
world works with, the internet disseminating information all around the
world.

Yet if he wants to waste 500 thousand pounds of his money so be it!

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Jahbulon]

On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 19:58:42 +0100, Jumper wrote:

> I can't understand why PJS, is still trying to stop the
> media in the England and Wales revealing his sexual antics.

With fame and fortune comes petty minded silly-ness? Would he not be
better to spend the money on setting-up the PJS Foundation that will keep
his name alive?

[F Murtz]

Jumper wrote:
> I can't understand why PJS, is still trying to stop the media in the
> England and Wales revealing his sexual antics.

Can't you type ELTON JOHN his name is not Voldemort

[Vidcapper]

On 16/04/2016 04:39, F Murtz wrote:
> Jumper wrote:
>> I can't understand why PJS, is still trying to stop the media in the
>> England and Wales revealing his sexual antics.
>
>

> Can't you type xxxxx xxx his name is not Voldemort

Technically, we can't type his name in that context without being in
breach of the injunction...


--

Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

[tim...]

"Jahbulon" <Jab...@freemasons.con> wrote in message
news:pan.2016.04...@freemasons.con...

Do people in the public eye really get remembered (after they are dead)
because they set up a trust for good causes?

I agree that people like Andrew Carnegie are only know to the (current) man
in the street because he left lots of public buildings with his name on, but
then Carnegie was a mere "businessman" from an era where businessmen where
unknown outside of their set of peers.

But for people whose name is known because, whatever it is that they do is
"popular culture", don't they continue to be know because that culture
remains popular (FSVO).

I'll give you a real example:

Why do you/we continue to know of "Cezanne"?

Is it because of the work that he did when he was alive, is still highly
regarded (by some set of people)?

Or because, when he died, he left some money in trust for good causes (I
personally know the person who now overseas this trust).

Did you even know that he had set up such a trust? (Cos until I became
acquainted with this person, I didn't).

tim

[F Murtz]

Bunch of whimps, can you point to any injunction breaching in usenet
having any problems?

[pullgees]

It isn't so easy to find those names involved, I know who they are only after considerable searching. I can only assume that most of the world's media are not interested, and also some overseas papers are not putting the names online as they know readers in England will find out; probably playing it safe.

[skate]

On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 18:43:08 +1000, F Murtz <hag...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Vidcapper wrote:
>> On 16/04/2016 04:39, F Murtz wrote:
>>> Jumper wrote:
>>>> I can't understand why PJS, is still trying to stop the media in the
>>>> England and Wales revealing his sexual antics.
>>>
>>>
>>> Can't you type xxxxx xxx his name is not Voldemort
>>
>> Technically, we can't type his name in that context without being in
>> breach of the injunction...
>>
>>

>Bunch of whimps...

It's aright for you, you're not posting from England or Wales.

>... can you point to any injunction breaching in usenet
>having any problems?

Usenet is part of social media and such media users have been warned
about the consequences of breaching an injunction in the past:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/394985/Bulger-injunction-protects-public

[Fredxxx]

I agree with you, where the person or people involved with this
injunction are easily identifiable. An example is a footballer having an
affair with Imogen Thomas.

In this case there is no way I can use any reliable UK media information
to determine what the injunction is all about. Indeed, because all I
know is a "married" couple, I would actually exclude the perpetrator of
the injunction as most gay men are not married, nor have ever been so.

In this case ignorance of the injunction would be a successful defence.
I assume the injunction is sent to likely media publishers, and not the
likes of me.

[Jumper]

I cannot understand why some overseas papers, are not putting the
plaintiff’s name on their websites as the servers they use are probably
not in England or Wales. Does English jurisdiction cover server farms in
countries other than England and Wales?

[skate]

Do you feel free, then, to bandy about Usenet the names of the people
involved in this injunction?

[GB]

On 16/04/2016 11:14, Jumper wrote:

> I cannot understand why some overseas papers, are not putting the
> plaintiff’s name on their websites as the servers they use are probably
> not in England or Wales. Does English jurisdiction cover server farms in
> countries other than England and Wales?

There's an argument that, if the website can be viewed in the UK, then
the news is being published here. I can't see it standing up, but it's
enough to worry editors over a rather dull story.

The only point of interest is that this couple has children, yet they
have what they term an open marriage. Children deserve more stability
than that.

[petert...@gmail.com]

On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 12:37:53 +0100, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com>
wrote:

The other reason of course could be that it just isn't interesting.

[Vidcapper]

Quite so - only the cover-up has made it interesting.

--

Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

[Aloysius]

On 15/04/2016 19:58, Jumper wrote:

>
> The barrister representing for PJS said the "media storm" would be
> "devastating" for his client and for his children,

I would have thought that having two dads would be pretty devastating
to the kids as well. THey must get the piss taken out of them at school
rotten.

[pullgees]

Well if that were true there would be no gossip magazines.

[Fredxxx]

Since they can identify their maternal mother, having two dads might be
something for a young child to boast about.

[AndyW]

On 16/04/2016 09:41, tim... wrote:
>
> "Jahbulon" <Jab...@freemasons.con> wrote in message
> news:pan.2016.04...@freemasons.con...
>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 19:58:42 +0100, Jumper wrote:
>>
>>> I can't understand why PJS, is still trying to stop the
>>> media in the England and Wales revealing his sexual antics.
>>
>> With fame and fortune comes petty minded silly-ness? Would he not be
>> better to spend the money on setting-up the PJS Foundation that will keep
>> his name alive?
>
> Do people in the public eye really get remembered (after they are dead)
> because they set up a trust for good causes?
>
> I agree that people like Andrew Carnegie are only know to the (current)
> man in the street because he left lots of public buildings with his name
> on, but then Carnegie was a mere "businessman" from an era where
> businessmen where unknown outside of their set of peers.

The current man in my street knows a lot more about him but then I was
born and raised a mile or so from his birthplace and we got the Carnegie
story drummed into us at school.
And a lot of locals can claim a family connection (as can I via the
Baxter line sadly no money though).

Andy

[Vidcapper]

Indeed - many kids don't even have *one* father, and unlike the kids
being protected in this case, it's likely they're being a burden on the
state...


--

Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

[JNugent]

There are no children who don't have one father.

There are some children who don't have a responsible citizen for a father.

[Fredxxx]

There are many children being brought up by their lesbian parents who
have no idea who there father was.

Indeed in some cases it is even sanctioned by statute.

[Max Demian]

On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 12:11:06 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

The are some fathers who consider their child support bill to
constitute a particularly expensive prostitution charge for a one
night stand they had no intention of leading to fatherhood. And with
the easy availability of birth control nowadays they have a point.

--
Max Demian

[kat]

On 18/04/2016 15:06, Max Demian wrote:

>
> The are some fathers who consider their child support bill to constitute
> a particularly expensive prostitution charge for a one night stand they
> had no intention of leading to fatherhood. And with the easy
> availability of birth control nowadays they have a point.
>

Then perhaps they should have used it themselves.

--
kat
>^..^<

[Aloysius]

I have four kids. I wanted one. My ex promised she was on the pill so I
asked her recently how come she kept getting pregnant. She replied that
she knew I wouldn't accept any more so deliberately got pregnant.

[petert...@gmail.com]

On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 07:25:42 +0100, Vidcapper <vidca...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>Indeed - many kids don't even have *one* father, and unlike the kids
>being protected in this case, it's likely they're being a burden on the
>state...

The injunction is expensive but what good value publicity wise :-)

[Norman Wells]

"Aloysius" <famewara...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:nf2u3t$8fh$1...@dont-email.me...

You'd never have guessed, would you?

[kat]

Not quite the same situation as a one night stand, and obviously you
trusted her. But honestly, one "accident", it happens. Two - you could
have taken responsibility yourself as it would have seemed the Pill
didn't work too well for her. So Number 4 is down to you.

--
kat
>^..^<

[Juan Carr]

In article <pGkQy.1002718$hz.1...@fx42.am4>, vidca...@yahoo.co.uk
says...

>
> Technically, we can't type his name in that context without being in
> breach of the injunction...

And what injunction would that be and how does it affect the man on the
Clapham Omnibus?

More to the point, how does the man on the Clapham Omnibus get to know
about it? Has every single household in the land received a Recorded
Deivery letter advising them of it?

We already know that the UK legal system is a joke (innocent until
proven guilty, y-e-a-h right, there goes the concept of being remanded
in custody) but to expect a carpet muncher on the Isle Of Wight to know
he's breaching an injunction when all he's done is stumble across, for
example, Guidos excellent site is even funnier.

[Vidcapper]

Except that the last album was released well before this story broke...

--

Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

[petert...@gmail.com]

On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 07:29:42 +0100, Vidcapper <vidca...@yahoo.co.uk>

wrote:

>On 18/04/2016 16:41, petert...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 07:25:42 +0100, Vidcapper <vidca...@yahoo.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Indeed - many kids don't even have *one* father, and unlike the kids
>>> being protected in this case, it's likely they're being a burden on the
>>> state...
>>
>> The injunction is expensive but what good value publicity wise :-)
>>
>
>Except that the last album was released well before this story broke...

Yes but now they can re-issue as they are no longer just a gay
interest. One of them has shown hetro traits which could lead to all
sorts of sexual attractions. They can now be hero worshipped by trans
and all other variations of perversions :-)

[Richard McKenzie]

Will Smith has an open relationships
his kids turned out ... sorry poor example ;)

[DerekF]

On 16/04/2016 01:34, Jahbulon wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 19:58:42 +0100, Jumper wrote:
>
>> I can't understand why PJS, is still trying to stop the
>> media in the England and Wales revealing his sexual antics.
>
> With fame and fortune comes petty minded silly-ness? Would he not be
> better to spend the money on setting-up the PJS Foundation that will keep
> his name alive?
>

Does his partner not sponsor an AIDs foundation?
Derek

[tim...]

"Richard McKenzie" <richardm...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:251e0b58-33d7-4679...@googlegroups.com...

are we all supposed to know why?

cos I haven't got a clue

tim