OK. This is getting silly.
According to the latest news at Mediaguardian, Mahmood’s won another temporary injunction preventing publication of his photograph.
Why?
If he was in a witness protection scheme, then I could understand it. But as far as I’m aware he’s not.
So why can’t we see his picture.
Well, there’s an old photo at Wikipedia.
But just because he doesn’t want his photo published everywhere, that’s really not a reason for it not to appear.
I don’t want my photo to appear in the News of the World. To be honest, they’re unlikely to want to publish my photo.
But if I have an affair with, say, a famous actress, they might want to publish my photo (Again, this is incredibly unlikely).
If they doorstep me, then I’m going to be doing well not to have my photo taken. And as long as they and I are both on public property, then there’s really very little I can do to stop them.
Maybe I can get an injunction to prevent them. I bet that there are quite a few tabloid victims who’d like to have similar injunctions.
The News of the World’s making great play of the fact that his investigations have led to the conviction of 130 criminals. I’d like to see a list, but, nonetheless, he’s not an undercover policeman.
I trust, and expect, that this injunction will get turned over.