Elton John sex scandal

Elton John‘s partner and now-husband of 23 years, Canadian David Furnish, has been having a longtime affair with British businessman Daniel Laurence.

As per different lustful reports from sources like the tabloid National Enquirer, Furnish had unprotected sex on various events with Laurence, and Furnish joined Laurence and his better half Pieter Van nook Bergh for a Dec. 2011 trio in a kiddie pool loaded with olive oil. (For the record, this won't not be an "undertaking" by any stretch of the imagination, since John has been clear that his marriage to Furnish is "open," which means each of them can have connections of a sexual nature with other individuals.)

Outstanding, isn't that so? Totally. Sadly for British media, which could without much of a stretch seize on this story and explode it on a colossal scale, a questionable order in the U.K., brought by John himself, has the ability to put English writers in prison on the off chance that they give an account of the story.


"This is a flat out sham," British MP Philip Davies, an individual from the Commons' equity select board of trustees, told British media.

Before the corrupt story could take off in the U.K., John, 69, secured the court-requested directive, which bars any notice of his or Furnish's names in English (or Welsh) media. Under the watchful eye of the Court of Appeal, attorneys for John contended that he and Furnish, 53, constantly needed their private life private, having never sought exposure, and that discharging any insights about their private sexual coexistence would obliterate."

Obviously, English media have found a workaround (of sorts), ascribing story points of interest to an "understood VIP couple." Since there's no boycott in some other nation — or on the web, barring online networking — the personality of the couple is only a tick away.

The story has brought about a noteworthy swell in the U.K. about free discourse. Free-discourse advocates and various British individuals from Parliament, alongside the overall population, have reprimanded the order. These sorts of bans have customarily been disapproved of by the British individuals, who consider them to be apparatuses that can be used by the rich and capable to conceal their transgressions from people in general.

"It is not about the stories they are attempting to stop however the ridiculousness of attempting to keep a free press distinguishing them when the entire world definitely knows who they are," said an article in Scotland's Daily Record.

To be sure, orders regularly crush the reason, following as a rule they simply pull in more regard for the current occasion.

"Should squeeze flexibility be reduced by the rich in light of the fact that they don't need their youngsters to be humiliated?" asked blogger Paul Staines.

On the off chance that the directive is broken by a British media outlet, they could be accused of criminal hatred of court, which could conceivably mean correctional facility time. Indeed, even residents who allude to John or Furnish by name on online networking are liable to indictment.