3-way star let olive oil pal slide into marital bed…and then sent bizarre swing gift to ‘try out’
Cheating star pestered shocked friend and their partner to use 'special-swing' which came with an invite to meet-up again
THE celebrity who allowed a pal to stay overnight in his marital bed went on to send a bizarre gift to the friend and their partner.
The household name, known as PJS in legal papers, bought them a specially-padded swing.
The present turned up at their home with an invite to come round, but the pair declined.
The cheating star — at the centre of an olive-oil fuelled threesome scandal — arranged the meet-up with the pal, who has been gagged by judges.
It was at the celeb’s multi-million pound house while the maid was away.
Last night the pal, known only as AB, told The Sun on Sunday: “It was a bizarre experience — being in a global superstar’s house, in the marital bedroom while surrounded by their personal belongings.
“It made me feel very uncomfortable.
“He insisted on arranging it for the one day of the week when the maid was off. I was just keen to see the house, to be honest.
“There were several rooms up there but PJS let me stay in the marital bed.
“It had a huge walk-in wardrobe, a massive queen-sized bed and loads of artwork by household names on the walls.
“It was very weird. All their personal effects were littered around the room, every table and cabinet was covered in stuff.
“It felt very odd — a bit creepy. Even though I’d liked the idea at first, I decided very quickly that this would be the first and last time.
“It felt very much like I was intruding upon a couple’s personal space.”
The well-known figure met AB twice before arranging another meet-up with them and their partner CD.
AB said: “We were shocked when a giant box turned up with “swing” printed on the side. Inside was a huge metal frame that you piece together.
“PJS pestered us to come over and give it a try.”
Three months earlier the pair had met with PJS during which they splashed around in a paddling pool filled with olive oil.
The revelation comes after the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that an injunction barring The Sun on Sunday from publishing the story must stay in place.
The astonishing decision by Britain's highest court sparked fury this week and was branded a “cheater's charter” by Tory MP Alec Shelbrooke.
Far too superior: Or maybe not Baroness Hale?
NONE of the four judges who refused to lift the injunction are believed to be on Twitter or have social media accounts.
Lord Reed, Lord Mance, Lord Neuberger and Baroness Hale all declared there was no public interest in naming the pair.
Baroness Hale, the most senior female judge, lives in a £3million home in Islington, North London.
She enjoys drama, the card game duplicate bridge and obscure books.
In an interview last year she admitted reading Judges by Andrea Camilleri, author of the Inspector Montalbano stories.
And she said the last film she had seen was Oscar-winning The Theory of Everything, with French subtitles, while in Paris.
Pop music is also not her thing and she has previously spoken about hearing the choral matins at Gray’s Inn in London, with a Mozart anthem.
The Baroness has also written a book on family law which sets out the rights of modern families.
When she joined the House of Lords she even commissioned her own coat of arms.
She said: “You don’t have to but I thought, why not? The supporters are the frog prince; the castles are for Richmond; the scrolls represent the law.”
PJS and their spouse, known as YMA, have children and the Supreme Court ruled the story could have a negative effect on them.
The pair have argued they have an “open marriage” — meaning that our revelations about PJS’ long-running affair did not mean PJS was cheating. AB reacted angrily to this week's Supreme Court injunction ruling.
Their story has been published overseas and online but the injunction prevents people in England and Wales knowing the details.
AB said: “It’s supremely annoying. It’s a clear case of justice for sale, which used to be a US sickness but now it’s crossed the Atlantic.
“These judges are totally out of touch. It’s Victorian justice in the digital age.
“Our legal system needs to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century. People can tweet about it but can’t read it in the paper. It’s farcical.
“The judges say it’s not in the public interest, but PJS is wasting taxpayers’ money to cover up things he’s actually done, for purely selfish reasons, so that he and YMA can make more money.
“Taxpayers are shelling out hundreds of thousands of pounds for these court hearings just so a wealthy star can protect their reputation.”
CD added: “It’s another case of the one per cent doing whatever they want and using lawyers and laws to cover it up — while everyone else foots the bill.
“Injunctions are being abused with impunity and aren’t fit for purpose in a modern democracy.
“This case is all about balance, and the judges have clearly got it all wrong.
“The British Bill of Rights is urgently needed and must include the right to free speech.”
Kid ruling just aids the dodgy: By Jacob Rees-Mogg
AT the heart of the Supreme Court decision to restrict freedom of speech in favour of privacy is the interests of the children.
This raises the obvious question: Would not the youngsters’ best interests be served if the appellant had not ignored their marriage vows in a succession of sordid sexual encounters?
It also implies adulterers with children deserve more protection than those without when the legitimate public interest is the reverse.
The court seems unrealistic in ignoring that the children will have found out about the allegations with their friends from the internet.
If youngsters are as greatly damaged by adultery as the judges think then surely it would be better not to limit the publicity but to stop the activity. Their Lordships appear unconcerned by the actions but censorious of the reports.
As with all attacks on freedom of speech the question is who decides. Here the judges are an admirable set of highly intelligent elderly arbiters who are confident of their goodness and believe they know what is in the public interest.
Parliament never dared to vote for a privacy law knowing it benefits the rich and powerful.
But the European Convention on Human Rights has given the elite the power to protect itself.
It now perversely seeks to protect children by banning the reporting of bad behaviour while giving carte blanche to the badly-behaved.
It would be better to allow the people to decide what is in their interest but this requires them to know what the story is about.
Love rats betraying families: By Mark Stephens
CELEBRITY love rats abound but the Supreme Court judges who tried to put a wooden stake through the heart of the kiss-and-tell have inadvertently thrown children under the legal bus.
Adulterers and philanderers with kids now have a free pass to hide their indiscretions and breaches of family trust behind the cots, prams and rattles of babes-in-arms in the misguided belief that it is better for a child to be unaware of their parent’s infidelities.
Parents would be better being honest with their children, who probably have a greater insight into the state of their relationship than the courts have so far given them credit. Parents would certainly be better standing as role models to their children by not philandering.
Most will not judge the sexual incontinence of celebrities. The lifestyle presents opportunities absent from the lives of ordinary folk.
But there is a sniff of rank hypocrisy about living a hedonistic lifestyle, thrusting your children into the spotlight when it suits to promote yourself, and to cultivate a false “happy-family” image, and then cowering behind your children when the media catches you with your pants down playing a seedy away game.
Responsible parents believe that they should take responsibility for the consequences of their life choices — they are adults.
These parents should stand in front of their children accepting full responsibility for their actions — not behave like cowering, snivelling cowards using their children as a shield against scrutiny of life’s indiscretions.
Win 100 paddling pools and (non-virgin) olive oil
CURIOUS Sun on Sunday readers can enjoy knowing ALL the details of a celebrity-style olive oil splash-around in a paddling pool, thanks to our incredible prizes.
We have laid on 100 olive oil (not the extra virgin type) and paddling pool sets to hand out for FREE – and the best thing is this time there is not a gagging order in sight.
The giveaway is worth hundreds of pounds, although this is substantially lower than injunction-chasing lawyers’ hourly rates.
To win one of the sets – and a chance to get a taste of how the super-famous live – simply email your name and contact number, using “olive oil” in the subject line, to win@mcb777.site.
T&Cs: Competition closes at 11.59pm on May 29, 2016. Open to over-18, UK residents only. One entry per person. One prize per winner. Winners selected at random from all valid entries on May 30, 2016. Please allow seven days for winners to be announced. No cash alternative. Prizes used at winners’ own risk.