There’s  been a lot of talk recently about these super-injunctions got in court by celebrities to protect news organisations publishing scandalous details of their private lives.

The first question is one of public interest, is it right for newspapers to publish sordid details of a celeb having an affair?

Newspapers will say yes, they live their lives in public and shouldn’t be able to shut out something that people will be interested in.

The celebs, and seemingly the courts, think they should be able to do what they like in their private lives and not be hounded by the vultures of the press.

If we didn’t live in a shallow-celeb obsessed world then it probably wouldn’t matter, but we do and everyone (including me to a point) wants to know whether their favourite singer/actress/footballer is indulging in a bit of extra curricular activity behind their doting partner’s back.

The injunctions are super-secret, the papers often aren’t even allowed to publish they have been taken out.

The problem is in this day and age, social networks like Twitter are rife with gossip.

Just this week, an account was set up naming the celebs with injunctions.

How long it lasts is another story, but it’s out there.

Likewise, all the national papers know who they are, and they tell their friends, who put thinly disguised hints on Twitter.

Can you police Twitter?

I would assume it’s a civil matter, perhaps a hotshot lawyer could spend their days searching for people spilling the beans on Twitter, but it’s hardly a cast iron way of doing things.

The good thing is, MPs don’t like these superinjunctions any more than the public do and moves are in place to review whether they should be allowed at all.

The fact is, celebs know the way the national papers are and some, like Jordan/Katie Price, are fine operators who maximise the celebrity obsession to its full potential.

The short answer is, if you’re in the public eye, try to keep it in your trousers, as with technology the way it is, you’ll do bloody well to hide your dirty little secrets.

EDIT: As if to prove my point, this post got 174 views in about four hours when I put it up yesterday. I’ve got no doubt most of them would’ve been from people searching for the identities of the celebs involved.

Sadly, themultifarious.com does not have access to the finest lawyers in the land, so cannot reveal who they are.

One of the more boring topics of debate amongst the national newspapers is the subject of the salaries of local authority chief executives.

The phrase “earns more than the Prime Minister” appears in pretty much every story.

Yes, they get paid a lot, but running a council is bloody hard.

Very few chief executives of companies (who often earn a lot more) face the prospect of going to prison but  if a child dies in care, a council chief exec can face charges of corporate manslaughter.

So, if the salaries are reduced, the good people go elsewhere thus leading to a drop in quality of council services and probably more children dying in care.

It’s not a massively glamourous job either, you inevitably get what you want to do stopped because the councillors don’t feel it’s politically right, you get moaned at constantly by the public, you get ever changing government rules you have to follow and spend money on changing things you’ve already spent money on, you get told to build houses, spend a lot of money on identifying where to build houses and then people start protesting against it, you get told to look after children and then get less money to do it every year, you spend money on the roads, then it snows and they get full of potholes, so people moan.

I’m not saying all councils are brilliant, some waste huge amounts on bonkers projects, but the idea that people in charge of a hugely complex system involving hundreds of people doing hundreds of things, are overpaid is ridiculous.

These chief execs are an easy target to the rabid right wing tabloids, but if you pay peanuts you get monkeys.

Then of course when no-one’s bins get collected, the schools start failing and children start dying, they might get some proper stories.

This week, the Government announced shops would no longer have cigarettes on display as the latest part of the war against smoking.

This annoyed me.

I’m not a smoker, I never have been, and I was delighted when it was banned in pubs and bars as it made my clothes stink.

Now they smell of puke, sweat and farts, which is not great, but less likely to give you cancer.

Out of sight out of mind is the idea, but really who goes into a Tesco express to get some milk, looks behind the counter and thinks “ooh, they look nice - I think I’ll take up smoking”?

No-one.

The Government says smokers take up valuable resources in the NHS which could be directed elsewhere.

Right, so you need to take the same attitude to booze then, which is a huge drain.

Also, across the country literally thousands of people go to hospital every day after being injured playing sport. Better ban sport.

Likewise, people go to hospital after car crashes, better ban driving, and also crossing the road in case you get run over.

Oh yeah, don’t forget everyone’s too fat, better ban crisps.

The dangers of smoking are splashed everywhere and huge amounts of money have been spent on campaigns warning of the dangers.

Surely, everyone knows.

No-one I’ve ever met who smokes has said: “What do you mean it’s bad for you?” before stubbing out their fag and vowing never to smoke again.

So, if people really want to start something that could well kill them. They will.

Apart from fairly ridiculous spending, the Labour Government’s biggest failing in my eyes was telling us all exactly what we can and can’t do, and they were criticised by their opposition for doing this.

Now, lo and behold, the new Government is doing the same thing. Well I never.

Dave, stick to your cuts, making sure there’s no nasty things like libraries and leisure centre where people who vote for Labour can get books and go swimming.

Don’t forget to ensure your wealthy benefactors can benefit from various tax loopholes, and trust people to make their own decisions.

Of course, with nothing else to do, smoking may well become a popular hobby, and then there may be a problem.

There’s a new danger on the horizon.

After asylum seekers, homosexuals, it being impossible not to get cancer and paedophiles hiding in bushes in every single street in the country just waiting to swipe your children our friends at the Daily Mail have taken a new and slightly bizarre line of attack.

That’s right, the new enemy is none other than the ginger-coloured beast of the woods – the fox.

A quick trip around The Mail’s irritatingly engrossing website reveals several stories on the subject that there are clearly giant, mutated man-eating foxes marauding around the woodlands with the sole intention of devouring your babies.

This girl was clearly eaten after this picture was taken.

The Mail’s agenda has always been to create fear and judging by the opinions of some of the people I speak to, it works.

But foxes, come on, in the unlikely event of a fox coming after you you’d kick it wouldn’t you? It’s not like it’s a salt water crocodile.

I wonder if some member of staff at The Mail is a bitter ex-fox hunter who misses racing around the woods on a horse and wants to show that Tony Blair is responsible for an unstoppable wave of lion-sized foxes who are sure to take over the world because he banned hunting.

We best hope no-one gets attacked by a badger, or a war between man and beast could erupt.

This fox was soon feasting on the dead bear after a short yet brutal confrontation.

My quest has come to an end, I’ve found an article in the Daily Mail I’m interested in and I agree with.

I admit through gritted teeth the Mail does what it does extremely well and it’s website is morbidly fascinating, in particular the comments section, which I hope are made up, but I fear aren’t.

This is the Mail’s massively non-neutral story on the Government’s announcement it is due to relax health and safety law.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1316983/At-An-end-elf-n-safety-madness-meddling-officials-face-fines-ban-events.html

The phrase “health and safety gone mad” was heard regularly, and it was right.

The whole country had gone bonkers.

I’m no supporter of Cameron, I think he’s a man made made largely from plasticine who came from a factory called “the modern Tory” and I fully expect some standard old-fashioned Tory bullying of the poor while protecting their vote to come in shortly.

However, new Labour’s big mistake in my eyes was over-meddling.

They introduced a billion pointless, unenforceable laws and managed to turn the entire country in a quivering mess fearing legal action if someone got stung by a wasp in a public park.

Healthy and Safety is necessary, no-one wants the postroom boy to be told to move the forklift truck and end up impaling the MD as he shows round wealthy Japanese clients.

The problem was, such was the red tape and legislation, that people in councils and the like were quaking in terror about everything.

The concept of a risk assessment is a fairly sensible one – have a look round and see what the potential dangers are.

But the fear factor made people think too hard, creating scenarios that aren’t there.

This is the problem, the whole concept created fear of being sued, rather than actual action, and quite rightly, any council that has to pay out large sums of public money in court should be hauled over the coals.

The quote from Lord Young is an excellent and correct one: ‘Frankly if I want to do something stupid and break my leg or neck, that’s up to me. I don’t need a council to tell me not to be an idiot. I can be an idiot all by myself.’

So I guess the Mail has won its battle against for common sense and we can look forward to even more ludicrous stories about asylum seekers giving people cancer in the future.