No, this isn’t another “cash for questions” victim, although there have been further implications on that front since last I wrote. This is instead the affair coming out of 10 Downing Street that is so big, so huge, that the Mail On Sunday can only print the story without naming names. Apparently it is bigger than the revelation of John Major and Edwina Currie affair in the 80s, so I would assume it has nothing to do with the tea lady and the gardener at Number 10.
Rumors ofÃ‚Â those involved havingÃ‚Â sought aÃ‚Â super injunction have surfaced, of the like taken out by footballers Ryan Giggs and Rio FerdinandÃ‚Â in recent years. They didn’t work so well in the end, mainly due to a mix of football fans and Twitter. After all, it is difficult to sue millions of people, spread out all over the world, for simply re-Tweeting something.
Now I’m no internet gossip, mainly because other people will do the gossiping for me, thus saving myself from the threat of aÃ‚Â court action. That said, I have had a quick checkÃ‚Â (when I say quick checkÃ‚Â what I really mean is prolonged session) through various Twitter hash tags this morning, with #no10affair and #downingstreetaffair in particular bringing to light some interesting names, ones that you could easily believe are involved. However, if any of those mentioned do turn out to be true (and it could justÃ‚Â be the cats), I wonder whether seeking a super injunction to stop the pressÃ‚Â is really worth it. As with all recent attempts to nullify the print media, it only serves to make the story bigger. Anybody on Twitter can find out in an instant, making an injunction pretty useless and a big waste of money, and also, does an affair surrounding people involved with Downing Street really matter? I’ll answer that one for myself,Ã‚Â it does now!