I'm not convinced there is a superinjunction or injunction specifically for the MM case, based on the Popbitch edition sent out Thu 13 Feb:
Whatever his reasons for doing so, we have to admit that Phillip Schofield's decision to drop his coming out statement like a new Beyoncé album was pretty slick. That he managed to time it ten minutes after we'd sent out last week's Popbitch was an especially neat touch too.
There's been a lot of speculation swirling in the week since – so if you're wondering why the press reporting hasn't quite matched up with whatever you may have read on social media, rest assured that it's less to do with any rumour of shadowy superinjunctions and probably more to do with the IPSO warning that was sent out to newsdesks this week reminding them of the Editors' Code of Practice and its stance on privacy and harassment.
Whether or not the papers are going to play ball in that regard, we'll no doubt find out in due course. All we'll say is that if Schofe truly meant it when he said there was nothing forcing his hand to come out, then good for him.
Because, historically, that's rarely turned out to be the case whenever ITV's other primetime stars have suddenly felt an urge to give highly personal tell-all exclusives to the Sun on Sunday...
-------------------------
If not a superinjunction/injunction, perhaps Matt McGreevy was paid off by PS/his PR/ITV and signed an NDA?
Alternatively (and I don't know how the newspapers work - someone here might, please advise if you do), would The Sun have had to pay him for the story even though they ended up not running it because they had to get right of reply from Phil, who decided to do a 'tell all' interview instead?
Whatever his reasons for doing so, we have to admit that Phillip Schofield's decision to drop his coming out statement like a new Beyoncé album was pretty slick. That he managed to time it ten minutes after we'd sent out last week's Popbitch was an especially neat touch too.
There's been a lot of speculation swirling in the week since – so if you're wondering why the press reporting hasn't quite matched up with whatever you may have read on social media, rest assured that it's less to do with any rumour of shadowy superinjunctions and probably more to do with the IPSO warning that was sent out to newsdesks this week reminding them of the Editors' Code of Practice and its stance on privacy and harassment.
Whether or not the papers are going to play ball in that regard, we'll no doubt find out in due course. All we'll say is that if Schofe truly meant it when he said there was nothing forcing his hand to come out, then good for him.
Because, historically, that's rarely turned out to be the case whenever ITV's other primetime stars have suddenly felt an urge to give highly personal tell-all exclusives to the Sun on Sunday...
-------------------------
If not a superinjunction/injunction, perhaps Matt McGreevy was paid off by PS/his PR/ITV and signed an NDA?
Alternatively (and I don't know how the newspapers work - someone here might, please advise if you do), would The Sun have had to pay him for the story even though they ended up not running it because they had to get right of reply from Phil, who decided to do a 'tell all' interview instead?
Last edited: