Paper Monitor
10:30 UK time, Thursday, 21 April 2011
A service highlighting the riches of the daily press.
Another day, another gagging order protecting the identity of a famous person who has got up to something with someone they shouldn't and don't want anyone to know about it.
While some may agree with the judges who are issuing these orders and point out the papers want to make money out of these potential scandals, the press is united in their anger at this - well, that's the Sun's way of describing the situation, anyway.
Paper Monitor admires the way The Times has tackled the story by detailing the three latest injunctions but
One example: "Mr ****, a man who ****, claimed the mental health of his family would suffer if the pictures and information about his **** were made public." It makes for a striking-looking page in the paper and certainly makes its point.
Most outspoken must be He doesn't hold back with his view on "panty-wearing judges," as he calls them.
"I despise them," he concludes after pointing out to the reader the absurdity that he knows the identity of the three most recent recipients of the gagging orders, as do many in the media - but the reader is not allowed to know.
He adds a personal touch saying that he was in "a fashionable drinking haunt the other night and the actor (subject of one of the orders) was doing the backstroke in the European wine lake without a care in the world."
In his eagerness for the identities to be revealed, he points out if someone in the US set up a site to run all the names and all the allegations against the people, what could the High Court do? Food for thought, PM thinks.
The 
