very cunning
 

  You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more

[Closed] very cunning

28 Posts
20 Users
0 Reactions
132 Views
Posts: 36
Free Member
Topic starter
 

very cunning of the phantom superinjunction twitter leaker to include a false allegation about Jemima Khan and Jeremy Clarkson.

Since paper editors all know in whose name injunctions have been made, if there isnt an injunction they can print the name of someone, i.e. Khan. The absence in print of the other names leaked on twitter then has the implication that they are genuine injunctions because editors cant mention those people's names under the terms of the injunctions, even if its to report that their names were being leaked!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/celebritynews/8502058/Jeremy-Clarkson-texts-Jemima-Khan-over-nightmare-super-injunction-claims-on-Twitter.html


 
Posted : 09/05/2011 8:52 am
Posts: 17
Free Member
 

celebrities, WGAF?


 
Posted : 09/05/2011 9:19 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

I don't normally, but all this super injunction nonsense has got me intrigued now.
Although, there's a good chance that when I find out the names, it will be someone I've never heard of.
I mean, I've seen Jeremy Clarkson on the telly, but who's Jemima Khan ?


 
Posted : 09/05/2011 9:37 am
Posts: 251
Full Member
 

there was an interesting article on the guardian site.

just tweet the most outrageuos allegations about celebrities.

if any get deleted then they're the true ones with a superinjuntion in place 🙂


 
Posted : 09/05/2011 9:39 am
 grum
Posts: 4531
Free Member
 

I'm too thick too understand the OP.


 
Posted : 09/05/2011 9:40 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

I don't know if it's 'very cunning', as it sounds too complicated, and I'm too uninterested, to bother trying to work it out. But I'll take your word for it.

So basically you're saying that allegations of intimate pics of her :

[img] [/img]

with him :

[img] [/img]

are false ?


 
Posted : 09/05/2011 9:41 am
Posts: 31056
Free Member
 

This has pretty much completed my day.


 
Posted : 09/05/2011 9:43 am
 ski
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

grum - Member

I'm too thick too understand the OP.

Me too, going to have a coffee and read it again.

Was not too hard to find the twitter leaker though 😉


 
Posted : 09/05/2011 9:44 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

I'm too thick too understand the OP.

Basically somebody leaked an allegation about Clarkson and Khan.
Due to injunctions, editors can't say whether it's true or not because they're not allowed to talk about it.

If it gets deleted, then it's more than likely that it's true... erm... I think?!!


 
Posted : 09/05/2011 9:46 am
Posts: 251
Full Member
 

no, the Khan one was untrue - the other 5 that the twitter user posted, by the fact there's no discussion of them, can be considered to be true.

If the khan one was true no one woudl be talkign about it either.


 
Posted : 09/05/2011 9:48 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

who's Jemima Khan ?

She used to be Puddleduck until she married Ghengis.


 
Posted : 09/05/2011 9:48 am
Posts: 91000
Free Member
 

Genuine lol at Elf 🙂


 
Posted : 09/05/2011 9:50 am
 grum
Posts: 4531
Free Member
 

Ah ok I get it now. Skoolshoes, I *think the point is that they [i]can[/i] talk about Clarkson, because there is no injunction - this then suggests that the other claims are true, but can't me mentioned as there really is an injunction.


 
Posted : 09/05/2011 9:52 am
Posts: 1672
Full Member
 

Is there a hashtag or what have you that I shouldn't be looking at?


 
Posted : 09/05/2011 9:54 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Ah ok I get it now. Skoolshoes, I *think the point is that they can talk about Clarkson, because there is no injunction - this then suggests that the other claims are true, but can't me mentioned as there really is an injunction.

That's what I meant, just testing! 🙂


 
Posted : 09/05/2011 10:03 am
 grum
Posts: 4531
Free Member
 

Is there a hashtag or what have you that I shouldn't be looking at?

@InjunctionSuper

That's what I meant, just testing!

Of course 😉


 
Posted : 09/05/2011 10:05 am
Posts: 7670
Free Member
 

Yawn, is it time for a coffee yet?


 
Posted : 09/05/2011 10:21 am
Posts: 57
Free Member
 

Thank you, Ernie, you've made my day.

I may not be rich or famous but at least I don't look like Clarkson.

Jemima's quite sweet, isn't she?


 
Posted : 09/05/2011 10:24 am
Posts: 7670
Free Member
 

She's a Kahn after being married/manhandled by an ex ****stani National Cricketist turned politician. Had quite a wealthy daddy too so won't be too worried about her next Giro... 😉

<spot the stealth edit>


 
Posted : 09/05/2011 10:29 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Has quite a wealthy daddy too

Well she did have until he died.


 
Posted : 09/05/2011 10:39 am
Posts: 50252
Free Member
 

Has quite a wealthy daddy too so won't be too worried about her next Giro...

I dunno, have you seen the prices of the Xar? Nice helmet, mind you.


 
Posted : 09/05/2011 10:42 am
Posts: 6382
Free Member
 

I understand the thinking Stoner, but why use two people where there's temptation to think 'where there's smoke there's fire'... why not pick two totally disparate people- George Bush and Beyonce, for instance?

Let's face it, there are more unexpected couplings than Khan and Clarkson...


 
Posted : 09/05/2011 10:51 am
Posts: 36
Free Member
Topic starter
 

I imagine because just for a brief second one could believe it [i]might[/i] be true, making it just a little less obvious that it's a stalking horse gossip. Afterall they know each other socially.


 
Posted : 09/05/2011 10:53 am
Posts: 22922
Full Member
 

Wouldn't it be funny if all posts relating to Bush and Beyonce suddenly started disappearing now though 🙂


 
Posted : 09/05/2011 12:07 pm
Posts: 9175
Free Member
 

She used to be Puddleduck until she married Ghengis.

brilliant 😆


 
Posted : 09/05/2011 12:15 pm
Posts: 22922
Full Member
 

Having read the seemingly true allegations that accompany the demonstrably false one............. They are very so-what. Gossip column tittle-tattle at best, with protagonists that in many cases you'd need a reminder as to who they were, undertaking acts that might not be to everyones taste, but which aren't illegal, in some cases aren't immoral, non of which are uncommon, and in any instance are only harmful to anyone at all (but not the wider public) if discussed openly. There is nothing of public interest there. However the papers have filled more column inches from not being able to print them than they could ever have hoped to if they had.


 
Posted : 09/05/2011 12:50 pm
Posts: 50252
Free Member
 

Trafigura.


 
Posted : 09/05/2011 12:52 pm
Posts: 22922
Full Member
 

CaptainFlashheart - Member
Trafigura.

thats what you'd imagine given the fuss the papers were making.


 
Posted : 09/05/2011 1:24 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Those photos are grim.


 
Posted : 09/05/2011 5:22 pm

6 DAYS LEFT
We are currently at 95% of our target!