***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 2 *****
Sorry just being mischievous, wanted to give the mods a heart attack!!! :)
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 25 May 11 at 18:47
|
It's alright, I want to know as well as I find Twitter too tiresome to bother with !
|
|
Easy enough to find. That's all I'm saying :)
|
It is indeed.
Search google for: Super Injunction Names
go offside
clink link.
|
|
They make me sick the lot of them.
|
I laughed out loud at the thought of Jemima Khan & Jezzer*, and she would hardly be after his money. I could imagine him injuncting the papers to print pictures of them together, not trying to suppress them.
*nothing actionable here. It was in the Torygraph.
|
|
I know watching (unusually for me) the ITV news tonight mentioned it as well. That programme put it into perspective. Item 1 Stupid bonking overpaid idiots --- "and Finally" item troops returning from Afghanistan after six months and being paid peanuts. I really, really hate and despise them all.
|
>> *nothing actionable here. It was in the Torygraph.
>>
Nor is this actionable as it is in the Mail
www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1384757/
|
...nothing actionable here. It was in the Telegraph...Nor is this actionable as it is in the Mail...
Wrong assumption.
Plenty of actions are taken against newspapers.
What can be said is the newspaper is most unlikely to knowingly publish anything actionable.
But mistakes are made, and risks are deliberately taken.
The 'action' we are talking about here is possible breach of a super injunction - contempt of a court order.
Anyone who repeats that contempt is just as guilty.
But, looking at the stories, I don't think either of you need to pack your toothbrushes.
|
>> ...nothing actionable here. It was in the Telegraph...Nor is this actionable as it is in
>> the Mail...
>>
>> Wrong assumption.
>>
Thank you, M'Lord.
>> Plenty of actions are taken against newspapers. ....
.... and plenty of them fail.
In these two cases, Mail and Telegraph, the stories have been looked at with a fine tooth comb by their lawyers and they were most likely advised that the stories were highly unlikely to be actionable and even if they were taken to court, the newspapers would highly likely win.
So there, M'Lord.
|
...so there M'Lord...
Suppose,
What do you think my sentence: "The newspaper is most unlikely to knowingly publish anything actionable," means?
If you must make tetchy responses to my posts, read them first.
...In these two cases, Mail and Telegraph, the stories have been looked at with a fine tooth comb by their lawyers...
You cannot know that, and it's probably wrong.
Few stories are fully legalled for cost and time reasons.
The legal questions raised by these stories are fairly straightforward and were most probably dealt with by the newsdesks, and by the group of senior editors who make up what is known in newsrooms as the 'back bench'.
Of course, if it goes wrong, everyone will deny all knowledge and run for cover.
|
>> If you must make tetchy responses to my posts, read them first.
>>
.... In another thread you labelled people who don't share your view of Council employees as "fools". I think I might just be tempted to flounce if this forum got taken over by you.
>> You cannot know that, and it's probably wrong.
>>
.... No, it is not wrong. 100%.
>> Few stories are fully legalled for cost and time reasons.
>>
.... This story is one that is fully 100% "legalled".
|
...This story is one that is fully 100% "legalled"....
Prove it.
You can't.
...I might be tempted to flounce...
Go if you want to, but save us the melodramatic announcements.
There was enough of that garbage from mlc and hobby.
Why are you posting in this thread anyway?
Just to wind me up?
Carry on, but it will be another failure to add your list.
|
|
I would suspect that as the mail story mentions someone who has brought out a super injunction, and the torygraph is about super injunctions, that both have been passed through and cleared by the legal office at the newspaper. To do otherwise would be stupidity and editors and proprietors are everything but stupid.
|
>> I laughed out loud at the thought of Jemima Khan & Jezzer*, and she would
>> hardly be after his money. I could imagine him injuncting the papers to print pictures
>> of them together, not trying to suppress them.
>>
>> *nothing actionable here. It was in the Torygraph.
>>
So did I. It's such a ludicrous idea.
|
|
Mind stranger pairings have happened, Shane Warne and Elizabeth Hurley springs to mind? You immediately think that he is her "bit o'rough" period.
|
|
Lyle Lovett / Julia Roberts
|
Private Eye once printed 10 little known facts about the then Kate Middleton. One was that she had been previously engaged three times: to Stephen Fry, Wayne Rooney and Oliver Letwin.
I don't know why but it had me rolling about with mirth.
|
>> Lyle Lovett / Julia Roberts
Sven/Ulrika
|
|
Ulrika/Stan Collymore - or any cruiserweight who happened to be passing.
|
A bit of breathing space for the Press here:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13341058
Last edited by: Iffy on Tue 10 May 11 at 17:52
|
>> A bit of breathing space for the Press here:
>>
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13341058
Their nightmare averted - for now at least.
Not sure it's going to have much effect on the development of privacy via common law. The courts will continue to decide applications balancing the relevant sections of the Human Rights Act. As long as it's only restraining 'shag & tell' and not any real wrongdoing then I for one regard that as a good thing.
As a journo you may see it differently.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 10 May 11 at 18:50
|
...it's only restraining 'shag & tell'...
We have courts of law, not courts of morals.
The restrained woman is left in an unfair position because she is being told: "You can talk about your night of passion with Mr Nobody, but you cannot talk about you nights of passion with Mr Rich and Mr Famous."
That is a severe restriction of her liberty.
And for what? So the public may continue to be mislead into believing a public figure is faithful to his wife.
The position of the other parties doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Newspapers routinely talk about 'the public interest', when what they mean is 'interesting to the public'.
The subjects of these stories bang on about privacy, often using the supposed impact on their children in an attempt to blackmail the judge.
In reality, for them it's all about image preservation and career progression.
Last edited by: Iffy on Wed 11 May 11 at 08:11
|
But surely they want the news to leak out that they have a superinjunction? All the really rich and famous have superinjunctions, you just don't cut in in the social scene any more without one.
Real one-upmanship is to try to deny that you have one, like claiming only to own 6 Rolls-Royces, or as the Spanish Duke of Alba said when interviewed by Alan Whicker, "I don't have many castles".
|
Iffy,
You’re quite right about the newspapers. The public interest = interesting to (some of) the public = drives up sales, circulation and advertising revenue. All the rest of their line is cant.
Is there a real unfairness to the restrained woman? If she’d gone with you or me, both of us nobodies in this context, there’d not be the slightest interest except from our partners & families. And perhaps our colleagues. The only interest from the press is in recalling the stars doing the horizontal hokey pokey in terms of smut and innuendo to drive sales and get one over on their rivals.
The women have either been paid for the act and or had a damn good time on the fringes of fame. Now they want to double their money by selling the story; pulling up their pants with one hand while ringing a PR agency with the other!!
Like you I have a professional link with the courts including observing cases and reading law reports. Judges don’t get blackmailed and wil come down sharply on Counsel trying it on.
They are pretty adept at seeing through the chaff where it’s really about image etc. That’s why John Terry got named.
All that goes for the famous; actors, rock stars, sports people etc. Personally I’ve no interest in the sex lives of politicians either. If they cheat on their wives I’d say most of the above still applies. The exception is where there activities are at odds with their actions. Those who, hypothetically, moralise about abortion yet pressurise a mistress to dispose of their own ‘mistakes’ deserve opprobrium heaped from a great hight!!
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 11 May 11 at 09:42
|
When you indulge in acts with other people, your "privacy" does not exist. Someone else was party to the act, It was not private, and as such, they have the right to tell who the hell they like about it. By gagging them you are severely restricting their civil liberties.
As long as the press does not tell lies, or speculate without any evidence, then they have the right to print.
|
|
What's a super injunction as opposed to a common or garden injunction?
|
>> What's a super injunction as opposed to a common or garden injunction?
It's all got a bit confused as the press like to characterise common or garden privacy injunctions, where the parties are anonymised, as 'super'. The legal blogs differ on precise definitions but generally a super injunction was one who's very existence could not be mentioned. Trafigura is the case most often mentioned as an example.
|
Bromp,
I agree with your comments about judges - I was using 'blackmail' very much with a small 'b'.
But there's no doubt in many cases the barrister is effectively saying: "Allow publication, your honour, and think what it (you) will do to the poor children."
I think telling someone, even a scuzzy gold digger, she cannot talk openly of her experiences is an enormous restriction on the liberties she can reasonably expect as a citizen.
Sometimes the good of one has to be subsumed for the greater good.
But is this such a case?
The greater good really amounts to allowing the celebrity to carry on misleading the public - unless you buy the 'what about bairns?' line.
Last edited by: Iffy on Wed 11 May 11 at 10:15
|
|
The celebs in question can always just keep it in their pants. Problem solved! Nothing for the papers to tattle about then. Children protected.
|
It's a bit like a woman claiming she was raped though.
Her identity is protected...the man she's accusing has his exposed.
Grossly unfair.
Pat
|
|
And the funny thing is, is that if both parties were protected by anonymity until conviction, more women would be prepared to report rapes.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 11 May 11 at 12:49
|
...that if both parties were protected by anonymity until conviction...
They used to be.
Defendants in rape cases only became identifiable in, I think, the late 70s, or it might have been the early 80s.
I'm not sure why the change was made.
Until recently, it looked like going full circle, but the co-alition government put any proposed changes on the back burner.
|
Iffy,
So far as I remember rape victims were granted anonymity during the Labour gov in the seventies. Anonymity for defendants was brought in at the same time following pressure from members on the back benches.
It was removed again for defendants in the eighties.
|
...It was removed again for defendants in the eighties...
I'm sure that's right.
I wasn't doing a lot of court work then, but colleagues can remember the change.
As you might imagine, it was quite a novelty to name your first rape-accused.
|
>>
>>
>> It was removed again for defendants in the eighties.
>>
Not a common crime in that age group?
|
|
Interesting article in Private Eye today on this.
|
|
what sexual assaults by the over 80's?
|
Returning to something close to the OP.....
Hugh Muir's diary in yesterday's Grauniad had me laughing out loud on the train. Quote the Culture Secretary on the juxtaposion of the Mosely judgement and the PCC verdict on the Telegraph's entrapment of Vince Cable
'One was about two women paid to go into a room and tie an old man into knots. The other was about Max Mosley'
|
Emerging background in one of the 'footballer' cases throws more light on issues at stake.
Guardian report
tinyurl.com/5r9us6t
And the published judgement (opens as a pdf)
tinyurl.com/677zamx
|
|
Much as I do not believe that people should be able to use their money to cover up their infidelities, in a way I think it would be worth it just to see the death of the Tabloids!
|
...I think it would be worth it just to see the death of the Tabloids!...
The closure of any newspaper is not good for any society which values the freedom of its citizens.
The tabloids have exposed much wrongdoing over the years, as have the other newspapers.
A few stories may be considered by some to be pointless, but the worthwhile ones outnumber those many times.
Last edited by: Iffy on Wed 18 May 11 at 11:26
|
Its very easy to see past the injunctions. The papers like to have a little poke at laws about gagging. Editors try to sneak a way round it by having an innocent article about the celeb in question, somewhere in the paper, along with the gagged "other party"
Check out todays paper for example. Girl gagged by injunction on page 4, article about footballer on page 2.
Bingo
|
Fred 'the shred' Goodwin injunction partially lifted.
Hardly an overwhelming victory for press freedom, since much of the information had already been announced in parliament.
Although we can now say Mr Fred Goodwin is alleged to have had an affair with a woman.
We still can't name the woman, nor can she make a simple statement of what they did.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13453626
|
For those with an interest in this matter Lord Neuberger has now published his report. The press notice on the Judicary webpage gives the background from the reasonably perspective of the judges. Full report can be accessed from there.
tinyurl.com/3hfznyp (Judiciary of England & Wales website)
|
>> Fred 'the shred' Goodwin injunction partially lifted.
As a fan of "Matt" cartoons, I quite like the current (20th May) WRT the above:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/
Last edited by: AnotherJohnH on Fri 20 May 11 at 17:27
|
I'm surprised the footballer suing Twitter (or trying to) is who I think it is. Won't name him in case it gets this site in trouble.
If you have Google configured to autocomplete though.... type superinjunction and his name and that of Imogen are suggested. ;-)
Last edited by: rtj70 on Fri 20 May 11 at 18:17
|
|
Always thought he was a bit too good to be true.
|
|
Iffy, I agree. He seemed to be one of the few that was the good guy. But he is just as bad as most of the others.
|
>> Iffy, I agree. He seemed to be one of the few that was the good
>> guy. But he is just as bad as most of the others.
>>
I wouldn't use the term "bad" to describe his behaviour, although understandably his wife would. Footballers have attractive young females constantly throwing themselves at them, and who among us could hand on heart say they wouldn't be up for it in the same circumstances?
Personally, I'd think every day was Christmas (but not a word to Mrs RR now).
|
I resent being misled by a man purely because he has lots of money to buy legal protection.
If the man can mislead me by his wit and cunning, then good luck to him.
I'm very uncomfortable with the decision of a court effectively being sold to the highest bidder.
The matter itself may be trivial, but that's not the point.
This injunction is hanging on by its fingertips.
In the past, making a fuss in the way this player has means the story eventually gets more publicity than it would otherwise have done.
He might find himself on the front of every newspaper, instead of just one.
I hope so.
|
The published judgement on the Imogen Thomas case is here tinyurl.com/44xaejj
(pdf 75kb). There is a conflict of evidence between the footballer and Ms Thomas as to the duration and natue of the relationship.
If she'd alleged n affair with you or me rather than a footballer with lots of money nobody would give a damn.
|
>> I resent being misled by a man purely because he has lots of money to
>> buy legal protection.
>>
>>
Any man would use whatever means he could to keep some exceptionally embarrassing revelations about himself out of the media, I would not lay any blame on him for that. You and I don't possess the financial means to take out a super injunction, but if we had I'm sure we'd do so.
As for being mislead, that implies we have the right to know the bedroom secrets of anyone in the public eye even though we think an expose of any sexual exploits we might indulge in to be nobody's business but our own.
I do agree that in this case the footballer has scored an own goal, had he initially bit the bullet let the News of The Screws just get on with it it would be history by now.
|
...the footballer has scored an own goal...
He has shown a child-like faith in his lawyers, who have seen the main chance.
Shall we advise this man to sit tight and say nowt, meaning we collect hardly any fees?
Or shall we advise this man to fight everything and issue writs all over the place, meaning we collect a king's ransom in fees?
Tough one, that.
|
>>>> eventually gets more publicity than it would otherwise have done.
>>
>> He might find himself on the front of every newspaper, instead of just one.
>>
>> I hope so.
>>
So I suspect does he. Celebrities live by publicity, good, bad, notorious. The whole thing is a set up job to get more publicity, and obtaining injunctions while pretending to value their privacy is just the latest wheeze.
Obviously they want the truth to leak out slowly - that's the point of a gagging order.
|
...So I suspect does he...
It's a possibility, but I think in this case the player will think his existing, but apparently false, squeaky clean reputation is worth more to him than one as a Jack the Lad.
Also, if that were the case an out-of-court deal would have been done with The Sun, rather than enrich lawyers.
It's speculation, but given the legal proceedings have been widened to Twitter users, the player's legal bill will now be running into hundreds of thousands.
No small amount, even if you are on a lot a week.
|
>> It's a possibility, but I think in this case the player will think his existing,
>> but apparently false, squeaky clean reputation is worth more to him
The current injunction is 'interim' pending a trial of the issues. It may be that (a) the player is not as squeaky clean as we thought, (b) he's the victim of a stitch up or (c) some permutation of the above and other factors.
Even if (a) applies and he's had one on the side is it really any business of the rest of us?
The Neuberger report contains an admittedly non-comprehensive list of super injunstion/anonymity cases. Almost all except Trafigura involve the sex lives of folks who've enjoyed varying degrees of fame. I'd have more faith in the 'exposing hypocrisy' justification if at least a few were about other forms of misconduct.
In one of them both claimant and defendant are anonymised. It exposes more eleoquently than anything I can post here in brief the disgraceful behaviour of Fleet St's finest in pursuit of a modest circulation blip.
|
...the disgraceful behaviour of Fleet St's finest in pursuit of a modest circulation blip...
Looking for noble intent from any party is missing the point.
The player is trying to preserve a false reputation.
The woman is a celebrity obsessed gold digger.
The newspaper is looking to sell newspapers.
I would argue the newspaper is on firmer moral ground than the others - it literally lives or dies by its circulation, so is bound to do what it can to up that figure.
The key point for me remains the draconian restriction on the freedom of the individual.
She is barred from speaking of an experience in her life, and the rest of us are barred from commenting openly about it.
There can be no excuse for that.
|
>> The key point for me remains the draconian restriction on the freedom of the individual.
>>
>> She is barred from speaking of an experience in her life, and the rest of
>> us are barred from commenting openly about it.
>>
>> There can be no excuse for that.
>>
If you mean there's no excuse for such measures merely to protect the false reputation of am inflated-ego bladder kicker, then I agree with you.
However, in other circumstances I would support these "draconian restrictions" as you call them, for example to protect someone who was vulnerable, or for reasons of national security.
|
The entire episode proves - as if it is needed - the UK Justice is open to bribery . Just like MPs who stole our money, Judges are willing to let other lawyers argue for privacy - on behalf of the rich.
The poor can't pay so no privacy for us.
But then the judges are so up themselves and their own importance, they don't see it. Indeed, the Chief Justice complains about Parliament debating the issue and revealing facts when it is he and his colleagues who are effectively operating a two tier legal system.
But then , when have lawyers and judges worried about justice? The Chiedf Juctice complains about freedom os speech on the internet. He should get real.. He's living in the past..
|
...However, in other circumstances I would support these "draconian restrictions" as you call them, for example to protect someone who was vulnerable, or for reasons of national security...
Agreed, although the celebrity then plays the children card - 'think what this will do to my poor, vulnerable child'.
..."draconian restrictions" as you call them...
Well Londoner, if you post the name of certain inflated-ego bladder kicker in this thread, you are committing a serious contempt of court.
I call that draconian.
On a lighter note, early edition splash headline in The Sun:
Nitwit hits Twitter with writ
twitpic.com/507z1m
|
I assume if he wants to take Twitter and others to court, then he loses the right to hide behind the superinjunction?
Twit indeed.
|
...I assume if he wants to take Twitter and others to court, then he loses the right to hide behind the superinjunction?...
No he doesn't, which is another reason not to impose these things.
It's a classic example of 'what a tangled web we weave...'
So the Twitter user injunction is listed at court as 'CTB v Twitter and others'.
Result - yet more secret court proceedings.
Bit of a minefield from a reporting point of view as well.
|
|
All this brainless idiot has done, has made everyone search the web to find out who he is.
|
>> All this brainless idiot has done, has made everyone search the web to find out who he is.
I imogen he'll regret his decision.
|
Didn't this all started with Mosley who had a bit of a orgy and wanted the papers to tell him what they where going to write about him?
I really don't care what these players,celebs get up to if they want to be hyprocites let them.
They are in the limelight and they know full well that their behaviour is scrutanised thats the way of the world does not make it right or wrong.The price of fame.
There has always been a law for the rich and the others and its refreshing to see that the internet is changing this.There is a downside to the coin that somebody who is innocent their reputation can be ruined by slanderous comments..
And then there is Fred the Shred the banker one of many who I believe lives in the south of France who should have been taken to task for the mayem he caused ?
|
|
An American website called deadspin.com should be ashamed of themselves for mentioning the players name in an very funny article.
|
There's another knock-on effect of the injunction for today's games in the Premiership.
The player could play today and those witty football fans may have some choice chants for him.
Every game is covered by television and radio, so producers at the game concerned will have to be on 'mute alert' to prevent any injunction-breaking chants being broadcast.
Does anyone know why the poxy injunction was granted in the first place?
Not really, it's all secret, but I understand it's to prevent harm to his family.
The player should have thought of that before he decided to hump Imogen.
|
My post on Friday at 19:42 includes a link to the decision in the Imogen Thomas case. The injunction is interim pending trial of the issues.
As far as I can tell the footballer's contention is that it was a set up job and that there was no affair.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 22 May 11 at 09:07
|
...As far as I can tell the footballer's contention is that it was a set up job and that no imtimacy took place...
If so, and The Sun ran the story, then his remedy is to sue for libel.
Another straw in the wind was money demands by the girl - blackmail.
If so, then his remedy is to report the crime to the police.
That might not have been a bad tactic because as an alleged victim of blackmail he is automatically anonymous.
|
Iffy,
I amended my post slightly to delete the reference to 'no intimacy'. There is certainly dispute as to the nature and duration of the relationship. My recollection from reading Eady J's decision the first time was of a reference to the player's witness statement denying anythng more than a social encounter. On a scan now I'm not sure that's the case. Sorry if that means your post makes less sense than it should.
Of course if the Sun run the story then everythings out; he can only sue after the event.
Damages and an apology 18months later are hrdly full recompense. Mosely got a verdict in his favour on the 'Nazi' thing but it's still formlly planted in the minds of the populace.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 22 May 11 at 09:29
|
Different, Moseley never denied that deviant practices took place, merely that there was no reference to Nazis, despite playing at guards, uniforms, and concentration camps.
He claimed the entire deviant practices should not have been aired, but he lost that part. Only won the Nazi part.
|
...Damages and an apology 18months later are hrdly full recompense...
Oh dear, how sad - and welcome to the real world.
I see genuine victims of criminal wrongdoing every week who are let down by the system.
If the player is dissatisfied with the remedy he receives from his libel hearing, then he should do what everyone else who feels the system is wrong has to do - campaign to change it.
But that would be hard work.
The suspicion remains the motivation for the injunction is entirely self-seeking.
|
>> Oh dear, how sad - and welcome to the real world.
>>
>> If the player is dissatisfied with the remedy he receives from his libel hearing, then
>> he should do what everyone else who feels the system is wrong has to do
>> - campaign to change it.
>>
That's just a wrong analogy. Comparing criminal law and prior restraint in the civil courts is to divide apples by oranges.
The press don't like a strong libel law too much - hard work again. They're now facing a developing law of confidence which might prevent them printing tittle tattle about the private lives of the stars. It's purely about money (profit).
There's a strong suspicion that the leaking of names to Twitter is a deliberate attempt to undermine the law.
|
And if course if the press are that exercised about confidentiality being developed under common law thay can campaign for a statutory framework.......
But of course in spite of the hot air about unelected judges a Press Act is the last thing they want.
|
...That's just a wrong analogy...
It is not an analogy.
If the press print something about you which is incorrect, your legal redress is to sue for libel.
A Press Act would be interpreted by judges.
It's no wonder the press aren't keen given the ease with which these superinjunctions are apparently granted.
Seems to me they are no more than legal Rolls Royces - expensive, but yours provided you have enough money.
|
There was some sort of comparison between the inadequacy of libel damages as recompense and that of criminal process as redress for victims. If you say it's not an analogy I accept your grammatical knowledge is better than mine.
I would envisage a press act involving a statutory tribunal with process designed to be enabling to unrepresented parties. It would have a bias towards mediation and other forms of appropriate/proportionate dispute resolution. Appeals would go to the Upper Tribunal and on to the Court of Appeal on points of law.
The same editors who are now wailing about lawyers costs would march in with their own expensive QCs and attempt to tie the process in legalistic and costly knots. Hypocrisy of course, but turning the mirror on itself isn't really Fleet Street's game.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 22 May 11 at 13:11
|
Wonder if Rattle has seen this Imogen girl around his local haunts?
Apparently she is pursuing a music career and has been doing gigs in and around the Manchester area. Not sure if it is punk she is in to but wonder if Rats has seen her?
Or maybe she is too young for Rats ? :)
Whoever the player is , I hope he is not involved in the Champions League Final next weekend as I can see by then, this will really be plastered all over the papers and could put him off his game if he was to be involved.
|
Bobby, the Herald up in your parts have published a photo of the Randy Git, and named him.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13491086
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 22 May 11 at 15:38
|
Yeah I saw that at the shop this morning.
Full photo on front page with only a small black band across the eyes.
Brave decision by the editor or whoever makes that call.
|
>>
>> Brave decision by the editor or whoever makes that call.
>>
The injunction only applies in England and Wales.
|
|
Am sure it doesn't otherwise he would have been named before now and they wouldn't be chasing Californian Twitter either.
|
This is from the report linked by Zero -
The paper also says the injunction "holds no legal force in Scotland, where a separate court order is needed".
|
Bromptonaut,
At present, if I have enough money, I can go to court to buy your silence.
As well as shutting you up, I can prevent my name being known, while yours has no such protection.
Be honest, if someone came along and did that to you or a member of your family, you would go crackers.
Last edited by: Iffy on Sun 22 May 11 at 17:27
|
Let me see if I understand this.
The Lord Chief Justice says the internet is "out of control".
But the Scottish legal system means you need a Scottish court order to make an English injunction work..
Seems to me before he starts complaining about the internet , he should look to the legal system.
Ah, he's a Lawyer.. which explains everything (with apologies to PU).
Time we had a Chief Justice who knows what he is talking about.
Last edited by: madf on Sun 22 May 11 at 17:37
|
Madf,
Some parts of the Civil Service struggle with devolution and the seperate legal system in Scotland but the Lord Chief will be acutely aware that it's a seperate jurisdiction
I think the issue has come out of the left field. Brave or foolhardy decision by the Scotsman's editor though I have a vague recollection of similar issues when Spycatcher was the news of the day.
It will be interesting to see how CBT's lawyers react.
|
Bromptonaut
I remember Spycatcher : the early 1990s. The then Tory Gov't banned his book but it was freely available to visitors to Australia. It made a mockery of UK secrecy laws.
Well of course the world has moved on but it seems our Judges have learned nothing. The Irish papers are not covered by a superinjunction I suspect so we could have Irish papers doing a roaring trade.
It was not the Soctsman iirc but th Glasgow Herald what did the dirty - read it myself..
It can best be described as "urinating into the wind".
I think in the circumstances it is an "own goal"..
I'll get my coat...
Last edited by: madf on Sun 22 May 11 at 20:01
|
>> At present, if I have enough money, I can go to court to buy your
>> silence.
I think we need to identify some seperate issues.
The cost barrier to access any form of justice is terrifying; the 'Ritz Hotel' thing is not unique to privacy and libel. OTOH my sex life or yours is of no interest to the public so it's pretty unlikely that either of us would need to procure the silence of a third party.
A privacy injunction is also pretty hard to come by. Not just a question of paying your lawyer's bills and the court fee - there are plenty of flaming hoops to jump through before the court wil make an order. There might have beem a blip last year while appeal decisions clarified the law (the Terry case was illustrative) but the bar is now set high.
I'd really suggest a close reading of the Neuberger report - linked upthread - and the catalogue of cases mentioned.
|
...A privacy injunction is also pretty hard to come by...
We don't know that, do we, because of the secrecy.
I've had direct experience of two injunctions, and on both occasions I could barely see the need and they seemed to be granted fairly easily.
Both stemmed from the perceived need to protect criminals.
One related to the dangers of reviewing a book, and the other to a child criminal who would have been 40 by the time he hoved into my view.
"You must not identify John Smith."
Fine, since our last record of him was 30 years ago when he was eleven, there's probably not much chance.
The motivation for those injunctions was laudable enough - to prevent a vigilante attack.
What is the motivation in the footballer case?
To prevent embarrassment to a person who trades on a certain image - that is not what the courts are for.
This is a person, furthermore, who does have access to the laws of libel if the injuncted information is incorrect.
It seems to me his expensively assembled legal team pitched up at court with an oh-so-clever application and the judge fell for it.
Secret justice really is no justice.
|
|
Radio 4's flagship lunchtime news programme are now calling it a "Superinjunction Crisis" for goodness sake....!
|
|
But is it a superinjunctiongate yet? That's when it really serious.
|
|
No that's when we're told that COBRA have met...!
|
|
How come we never had a foot and mouthgate, or a Swine flugate.
|
It's a crisis in the sense that when a High Court judge says something, the great unwashed are supposed to take notice and obey, not take notice and disobey.
|
Can't see this injunction holding much longer.
The prime minister has given it a kick this morning, and The Sun are having another go at getting it lifted.
If the court's got any sense, it will realise its position is unsustainable and give in gracefully.
The trick from The Sun's lawyers point of view is to ask in such away as to allow a dignified retreat.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13498504
Last edited by: Iffy on Mon 23 May 11 at 13:54
|
My paper pretends to be respectable, so any hints it has dropped as to the identity of the footer player have not been broad enough for me to get them. And since I really can't be bothered to look for the name on the internet, I will have to wait for this crucial bit of knowledge, the final piece really in the Theory of Everything that, when published, will rocket me to global icon status, to be revealed to me.
I am not a patient man, but I don't mind waiting a few more years for that one. Festina lente, innit?
|
Festina lente, innit?
>>
Lord Onslow, who died last week, used 'festina lente' as the family motto. They translated it as 'On slow'.
Rather good, I thought.
|
When you read statements like this in the BBC link above:
"Giving his reasons for agreeing an injunction in the case of the footballer alleged to have had an adulterous affair, Mr Justice Tugendhat said the court did not grant injunctions which would be futile.
"But the fact these publications have occurred does not mean there should be no injunctions in this case."
He accepted the arguments put by the footballer's legal team that it would have a devastating effect on his marriage, his wife, and particularly their children.
You realise that our judges appear to have had a irrational moment as if the player was seriously concerned, no affair would have taken place....
Last edited by: madf on Mon 23 May 11 at 14:02
|
>> if the player was seriously concerned, no affair would have taken place....
But that's assuming it did take place - is the SI only supposed to protect the innocent-until-proven-otherwise?
|
|
If the law sets about deliberately trying to make itself look like an ass, does that mean it is an ass?
|
" But that's assuming it did take place - is the SI only supposed to protect the innocent-until-proven-otherwise?"
If it did not take place he could sue for libel. As he is not, one has to assume the affair did take place and the Judges comments bear that out.
The English legal system exists to protect the guilty - if they have enough money or are an immigrant from a place it is judged unsafe to return to despite whatever crimes they are guilty of in the UK
As for the law being an ass, the judges are doing their best to prove it is... and to demean it in the eyes of the population.
Basically the message is: the rich can get away with anything.. if they pay the lawyers enough.
Last edited by: madf on Mon 23 May 11 at 14:34
|
Meanwhile Guido Fawkes website is not in the UK so free from the injunctions so you can see the names etc at it.. Just Google his name...
He has a go at Shillings..sorry Schillings...
|
Focus,
It's not strictly speaking a super injunction but an injunction which is anonymised. The Neuberger report which I linked upthread explains the principles and nomenclature.The injunction is interim pending a full trial.
I'm not clear to what extent the claimant there is saying 'nothing happened ' or whether he's saying that whatever happened he's entitled to keep it confidential under the Human Rights Act. There is a conflict between that right and the right of the press under another limb of the HRA to report matters in the public interest. At trial of the issues the court will have to conduct a 'balancing act' to decide which right prevails.
If the name is out before the right to confidentiality has been determined then from from a practical angle that right is negated. Thus, in the interest of justice, the judge has granted an anonymised order.
All the stuff about a 'balancing act' between competing HRA provisions and the possible effect on the press was deabated in parliament when the HRA was being enacted. Governments of both parties have had years to make/enact more specific legisaltion covering press/privacy/redress issues but have failed to do so. The HRA is the only tool the courts have go and they'll have to make the best of it.
|
>> He accepted the arguments put by the footballer's legal team that it would have a
>> devastating effect on his marriage, his wife, and particularly their children.
Is he really trying to tell us that his wife, children, family, friends and team mates don't yet know its him? I dont think so.
|
>> >> He accepted the arguments put by the footballer's legal team that it would have
>> a
>> >> devastating effect on his marriage, his wife, and particularly their children.
>>
>> Is he really trying to tell us that his wife, children, family, friends and team
>> mates don't yet know its him? I dont think so.
Presumably he's saying that (for example) the other kids at his kids' school don't know yet that it's him (although that seems unlikely now), and if they did they would make like unpleasant for them in the way kids can do.
Last edited by: Focus on Mon 23 May 11 at 14:55
|
>> Presumably he's saying that (for example) the other kids at his kids' school don't know
>> yet that it's him (although that seems unlikely now), and if they did they would
>> make like unpleasant for them in the way kids can do.
I think that happened when the other kids found out their daddy was famous footballer anyway, that's assuming they went to a normal school.
|
>> I think that happened when the other kids found out their daddy was famous
>> footballer anyway, that's assuming they went to a normal school.
Wouldn't have expected that much unpleasantness from other kids for being kids of a famous footballer. Or at least I would have thought it's harder to make a kid feel unhappy when all their parent has done is be a top footballer.
|
>> Presumably he's saying that (for example) the other kids at his kids' school don't know
>> yet that it's him (although that seems unlikely now), and if they did they would
>> make like unpleasant for them in the way kids can do.
I think that's exactly the point and why resect for private & family life are in play. Any acts took place in private and with a reasonable expectation that they would stay that way. Is there any real public interest in the exposure of the information?
Wherever you draw the line there are going to be cases that fall close to it on either side. A judge or some other form of assesor is still going to have to decide them. And any new law will still have to be compliant with he European Convention on Human Rights.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 23 May 11 at 15:03
|
>> I think that's exactly the point and why resect for private & family life are
>> in play. Any acts took place in private and with a reasonable expectation that they
>> would stay that way. Is there any real public interest in the exposure of the
>> information?
There is another party involved. What about her rights? Where there are two parties there is no privacy.
|
I would have advised the footballer to let the story run and then do a follow-up along the lines of "I'm not going to let a scuzzy gold digger break up my family".
The Sun makes a donation to charity in exchange for the story, which all helps the player to reclaim the moral high ground.
No courts, no lawyers and the player's reputation is largely unscathed.
As it is, he now appears to be a cheating dad who lacks the moral fibre to take responsibility for his mistakes.
|
... He accepted the arguments put by the footballer's legal team that it would have a
>> devastating effect on his marriage, his wife, and particularly their children...
These comments relate to the case of a different footballer - TSE - currently before the same court.
See the last six pars of this story: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13498504
Of course, I can't tell you who this player is, but his team finished mid-table.
|
John Hemming MP has named the footballer in the Commons. The Guardian at least is reporting the fact on its homepage including the name.
The BBC seems more restrained at least for now.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13503847
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 23 May 11 at 16:25
|
...at least for now...
The domino effect continues.
Seems he's now been named in the Times of India, which has also named the second player in the other case - the one where the journalist Tweeted his name during a match.
But The Sun has lost its bid to get the first player's injunction lifted.
The judge made a remark about protecting families, so it seems player one is also playing the children card.
How noble.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1389841/Super-injunction-footballer-pictured-Scottish-paper-30k-unmask-Twitter.html
|
Judgement in Sun's renewed application is here:
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/1326.html
|
Lawyers to offer cut price super-injunctions after it emerged they do not really work: bit.ly/iecWPT
(Link to Daily Mash site, contains swearing)
Last edited by: Dave_TDCi on Mon 23 May 11 at 16:34
|
|
Sky News has his photo and name on their website.
|
...Sky News has his photo and name on their website...
That's the end of that, then.
Superinjunctions 0, The Great Unwashed 1.
|
>>Sky News has his photo and name on their website. >>
They have just broadcast a piece on him on Sky News, slightly strange seeing as the Sun failed to get the injunction lifted.
|
|
I saw the Sun's headline in the supermarket this morning and had a chuckle: "You're Not Secret Any More"
|
No, they haven't broadcast an article about him, nor did they do a piece about him on the web site.
I think you will find ( and they will claim ;) ) the news is about the MP who mentioned the name. The name is merely an incidental to the main article!
|
... slightly strange seeing as the Sun failed to get the injunction lifted...
They are relying on parliamentary privilege - anything said by an MP in the commons can be reported without the media outlet being subject to legal action.
It seems the Speaker may have tried dissuade the MP from naming the player.
I see his team got relegated, so he's probably in a bad mood.
|
>> That's the end of that, then.
It is now. Google News has it as the top story, with the primary link (with name and picture) going to C4P's favourite organ.
Can we name CTB on here now? :)
EDIT: Beat me to it PU and Chris S!
Last edited by: Dave_TDCi on Mon 23 May 11 at 16:59
|
|
A real life Spartacus moment ....!
|
>>I am Ryan Giggs!
Dave beat you to her..
|
As predicted, the legal action has succeeded only in getting the story on the front of every newspaper, instead of just one.
I hope Giggs remembers that when he pays his lawyers.
|
|
I somehow suspect I'm not the only one who doesn't give a flying fig as to who's shagging who. "Bloke with money and a bit of fame finds it easy to get his leg over" Wow, that's unusual eh?
|
...I'm not the only one who doesn't give a flying fig as to who's shagging who...
Me neither, but I'm not keen on needless secrecy and gagging people, which to me is what this is all about.
It's good to occasionally remind the courts who is ultimately boss.
Even better it's been done on such a trivial matter where no real harm is done.
|
'.I'm not the only one who doesn't give a flying fig as to who's shagging who...'
135 posts so far probably indicate a positive answer :-)
|
God how boring. Most of these chaps are interchangeable anyway. I only know what three look like really: Ferdinand, that beanpole chap who dances like Mick Jagger (i.e. incredibly badly and camply), and everyone's pet the Spud-Faced Nipper.
Giggs schmiggs. Who gives a toss?
|
The pseudonym 'CTB' lends itself to such a perfect description of this specimen that someone, somewhere must have a sense of humour.
|
So these super injunctions only reply to the great unwashed but not to our wonderful MPs,who, as we all know, are upstanding members of the community?
So, every day in Parliament, can we now have a session on what superinjunctions have been issued in the last 24 hours?
Was it not the MPs who voted to allow superinjunctions in the first place?
|
>> Was it not the MPs who voted to allow superinjunctions in the first place?
No, I dont think there is such a hard and fast law.
|
...So, every day in Parliament, can we now have a session on what superinjunctions have been issued in the last 24 hours?...
A parliamentary question has been put down asking how many of these things have been issued.
The Ministry of Justice is looking into it.
|
>> A parliamentary question has been put down asking how many of these things have been
>> issued.
>>
>> The Ministry of Justice is looking into it.
Not as easy as it sounds because there's no agreed definition.
|
|
I have to say chaps, we were all terribly well behaved, no-one mentioned his name till it hit on sky news, and I dont think the mods had to remove a single reference!
|
>> I have to say chaps, we were all terribly well behaved, no-one mentioned his name
>> till it hit on sky news, and I dont think the mods had to remove
>> a single reference!
Somebody posted the joke about Natalie's pop career and doing gigs in Manchester.
|
I thought her name was Imogen, and I'm not too sure Mrs Giggs would agree with Iffy's sentiment about no harm being done:)
It seems that most sportsmens wives are happy for their other half to play away just as soon as the public isn't aware of it.
It also appears that the pull of the lifestyle and money means that a face saving story about 'forgiving' tham always follows.
Women Huh, tut:)...no backbone!
Pat
|
PAt,
My mispost; the girl in this case is Imogen.
|
Thats an interesting thought Pat and maybe even worthy of another thread.
It does appear that there are many women who are happy to be the wife / girlfriend and put up with all sorts as long as they get the lifestyle they wanted.
No doubt there are Many who do walk, and I guess Mrs Tiger is the one that springs to mind, but it takes a while before they do (maybe, cynically, waiting till there is enough money?)
It all forms part of the "celebrity" lifestyle that is part of our country that I really really despise. Why try and do well for yourself, or study hard when you can go and get impregnated by a wealthy footballer and that is you set up for life. And you can sell your story to get some more money. And then launch your own maternity range.
grrr
|
>> It seems that most sportsmens wives are happy for their other half to play away
>> just as soon as the public isn't aware of it.
>> It also appears that the pull of the lifestyle and money means that a face
>> saving story about 'forgiving' tham always follows.
Because most of them married "the celebrity" and not the man.
> Women Huh, tut:)...no backbone!
but plenty of financial needs to fulfil.
|
Brompton, it was me and I never even managed a single thumbs-up for it!!
Well p'eed off!
|
Bobby ,
I saw it over on cyclechat early today and only 'got' it at that point.
Combinig it with a dig at Ratts probably diverted attention!!
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 23 May 11 at 17:55
|
>> Somebody posted the joke about Natalie's pop career and doing gigs in Manchester.
Saw it, noticed it, penny still didn't drop.
Doh? Or more a question of no footer culture? The latter I think.
|
I must be spending too much time online. I saw the original tweets a fortnight ago and assumed from the subsequent media hoo-hah that everyone was fully aware of exactly whose names had been named.
The media have expended almost as much energy on coverage of their own coverage of the whole episode - the whole nudge-nudge hinting thing, running articles about the involved parties on facing pages etc has appeared tiresome to an observer who's been "in" on it from the start.
|
|
Footballers often go into toilets at night clubs in Manchester with women (apparently)... I pity their wives a bit for having to put up with this behaviour. I know of someone who works in one and they have seen this themselves so little is secret....
Last edited by: rtj70 on Mon 23 May 11 at 23:14
|
There are fare better things to pity than footballers wives for having to put up with their behaviour.
It's quite simple, they don't have to put up with it.
In the unlikely event that they have gone into a relationship with a footballer not expecting that type of treatment they are quite free to walk away and leave them.
They never do....
Everything comes at a price, and the price they have to pay for the lifestyle is exactly what you describe above.
Just as in the discussions above about the super injunction for the footballer, I certainly don't believe I have a 'right' to know what he gets up to in private.
More important though, neither do I think he has a right to live only 'part' of his life in the public eye.
If the wivews haven't sufficient backbone to say 'If you can't keep it in your trousers, you're not keeping it in the house' then they deserve all the grief they get.
It's a bit like looking at a bag of Liquorice Allsorts and picking out the blue and pink ones.
Pat
Last edited by: pda on Tue 24 May 11 at 04:02
|
The hapless hack who lost the press corps draw to ask Sir Alec Ferguson about Giggs is now under threat of being banned from Old Trafford.
tinyurl.com/42nrsyy
What does Ferguson expect?
He's a good football manager, but seems to me to be a very unlovely individual.
Ferguson is still not talking to the BBC after they broadcast a programme several years ago about his agent son.
The BBC is an inanimate object, all he's doing is not talking to their audience - the team's fans - who might want to hear what he has to say.
|
|
Looks as though everything has been thrown at him already.........
|
>> The hapless hack who lost the press corps draw to ask Sir Alec Ferguson about
>> Giggs is now under threat of being banned from Old Trafford.
Ryan Giggs: Reporters' cars attacked by masked gang
Cars belonging to journalists and photographers camped outside the home of Manchester United footballer Ryan Giggs have been vandalised.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-13530027
Don't condone this, but I don't like the idea of reporters 'camping' outside someone's home.
|
What else did he expect? He knew the news would eventually come out, and all he has done is fed the hungry press beast, teased it and poked it with a stick.
I don't blame him really, I blame his Legal Firm and advisers, who have fleeced him for a fortune, done everything wrong, and thrown him to the wolves.
|
They're all a bunch of self-important, usually poorly educated, little men who believe they are some sort of demi-gods.....who cares who they hump really. That Ferguson is an arrogant wally.
Last edited by: Pugugly on Wed 25 May 11 at 09:22
|
|
BTW I wasn't defending Giggs.
|
If the road outside your house is public, you don't really have a say who parks in it, and nor should you.
There are worse people than a bunch of hacks to have hanging around.
And with all those cameras pointed at your house, you are unlikely to be burgled.
|
|
I suppose that's what they call a positive spin.
|
>> If the road outside your house is public, you don't really have a say who
>> parks in it, and nor should you.
>>
>> There are worse people than a bunch of hacks to have hanging around.
It's (usually) a bit more than that though. Anyway, whether illegal or not, I don't like it.
|
As it appears Giggs told his wife two weeks ago about the affair, it appears the injunction was to keep her from knowing.
He has history ... lots of it on this issue..
As above, his lawyers have acted in the best interest of bringing the law into contempt. The worst type of doing what is legal cos it increases your fees, not what is best for the client...
But then... is that not what lawyers do?.. cough.. sorry...
Last edited by: madf on Wed 25 May 11 at 09:44
|
Rumour has it, he came to the door earlier to talk to the reporters.
He said that although he loves living in Manchester, he does Miss Wales occasionally.
|
...It's (usually) a bit more than that though...
I've done a few of these jobs over the years, in what way do you mean 'a bit more than that'?
...Anyway, whether illegal or not, I don't like it...
Fair enough.
|
>> I've done a few of these jobs over the years, in what way do you
>> mean 'a bit more than that'?
Cameras trained on windows, microphones through letterboxes, visitors harrassed, intrusive/provocative/leading questions shouted.
I've not read it but I'd be surprised if the McCann's book doesn't contain an account.
|
|
PM was interviewing some Guardian hack about this stuff yesterday. With an apparently straight face he said that the press could be trusted (to be present during injunction hearings) as they had a record of being ethical and moral. Yeah right.....forgotten about phone hacking and (in particular) publishing random Wikileaks ?
Last edited by: Pugugly on Wed 25 May 11 at 10:25
|
...With an apparently straight face he said that the press could be trusted (to be present during injunction hearings) as they had a record of being ethical and moral...Yeah right....
The same can be of a police officer, or a lawyer, or an MP, or anyone else.
You can point to instances of bent people in any occupation.
I think there are more coppers and MPs in jail at the minute than journalists.
Not many lawyers in pokey, but most professions stick together when their backs are up against the wall.
|
|
I was getting at the Guardian's rather tacky handling of Wikileaks rather than a general dig at journos...
|
...I was getting at the Guardian's rather tacky handling of Wikileaks rather than a general dig at journos...
Fair enough.
There are some journalists I know who I would not trust because I know how they operate.
Trust is perhaps not quite the right word, but they will use any information they gather to advantage.
With some of the tabloids, you can also never be entirely sure how a story will turn out, even more so how it will progress.
Some of their own reporters say that.
For example, The Sun is at the minute very much on-side with the woman involved in the Giggs injunction.
That could change, particularly if Giggs starts to use his brains rather than his wallet.
|
...Cameras trained on windows, microphones through letterboxes, visitors harrassed, intrusive/provocative/leading questions shouted...
Cameras - yes, since it's still just about legal to point a camera where you want to.
Microphones through letterboxes - not really, dodgy for lots of reasons and you are unlikely to get anything worthwhile.
Vistors harassed - if you call asking someone a question harassment, but perhaps approaching a fellow citizen in the street should also be made illegal.
Intrusive questions shouted - bit pointless shouting at a building, so I've never done it, maybe some others have.
I've never understood how a question can be intrusive while the subject has the right not to answer it.
|
I'm struggling to enunciate this but.....
I agree with Alastair Campbell
tinyurl.com/3uqycwe (blog item hosted by The Guardian)
|
I've read that article.. It's typical AC: dog's danglies stuff.
He forgets MPs' expenses and reporting of the Chilcott enquiry.. But given his alleged lies to the latter, no doubt he would want to.
|
...tinyurl.com/3uqycwe (blog item hosted by The Guardian)...
Bromp,
I know it's an alien concept to a public servant, but for a business to survive, in this case a newspaper, it has to turn a profit.
Generally, a healthy circulation is the way to do that.
Campbell - plenty of history there, but I digress - has hardly come up with a startling revelation, has he?
Newspapers in shock attempt to sell newspapers.
Wow.
|
>> Newspapers in shock attempt to sell newspapers.
But wouldn't reporting the News of the World phone hacking also sell newspapers?
|
...But wouldn't reporting the News of the World phone hacking also sell newspapers?...
It's not the easiest case to report because of various restrictions and injunctions, but you are on fairly safe ground saying Harry Hack has quit, been arrested or locked up.
Those type of stories have been in all the papers and on radio and TV.
To me, there has been plenty of reporting of the phone hacking story.
But it's all judgment, some editors will see the story as a bit internal, reporters writing about reporters, sort of trade paper-ish, so will not want to publish reams and reams for the public.
Campbell probably thinks it's the most interesting story in the world because of his previous job.
And another thing, many journalists I know struggle to send an eight-par email, so the notion phone hacking is rife is laughable.
Last edited by: Iffy on Wed 25 May 11 at 13:22
|
>> Newspapers in shock attempt to sell newspapers.
>>
>> Wow.
>>
Which is what I said a week ago; sales by any means.
This whole thing is about commercial interest opposing regulation. The shagg and tell stuff should be constrained by the PCC code but the PCC is utterly ineffective. Not surprising that those affected reach for the courts as an alternative means of enforcing their rights.
The stuff about secret justice, exposing hypocrisy and judges on mission is just self justification and cant.
|
...The stuff about secret justice, exposing hypocrisy and judges on mission is just self justification and cant...
No it isn't.
From the papers' point of view it's a win-win situation.
Those that want to do kiss and tell can keep that avenue open, while at the same time filling their boots with secret justice stories.
The papers don't have to choose between one or the other.
Do you really think that superinjunction had the consent/support of the public?
Once again, the papers are only following public opinion, not leading it.
|
The entire injunction/superinjunction case is based on the premise is that there is one law for the rich and the poor can't afford it.
So of course AC (and Tony Blair - who probably has a superinjunction of his own - I would not put it past him) will whole heartedly support one law for the rich being he is NuLab and that was their motto.
See Tony Blair as a classic case and GB stealing expenses.
|
>> This whole thing is about commercial interest opposing regulation. The shagg and tell stuff should
>> be constrained by the PCC code
NOT.
As I said, if you sit at home and masturbate that is private. When you engage in activity with another party (or more!), that is only as private as both parties want it to be. If one party does not want to keep it quiet, there should be nothing you can do about, for it was never private in the first place.
remember, no Shag no tell.
|
...if you sit at home and masturbate that is private...
Just remember to close the curtains.
I say that because of a case involving a university professor who was charged with outraging public decency.
He was masturbating on his sofa, but the lounge window was not far from the road, so he was visible to passers-by.
The prosecution called several witnesses who all said they glanced into his lounge as they walked past and saw him in mid-masturbate.
It seemed the offence was made out, but in one of those perverse verdicts, he was found not guilty.
I reckon the jury knew fine well he was guilty, but thought it's a pretty poor show (ho-ho) if a man can't have a ham shank while his wife's at work, so they acquitted him.
|
Newsnight was interesting on Monday night. A lady from the PCC was arguing with John Prescott about how effective the organisation was, and he was spitting feathers when she reminded him that it had managed to block stories about him appearing in print.
I wonder what they were?
|
...and he was spitting feathers...
I interviewed Prescott once.
Well, it was more a case of him dictating a statement than an interview.
His response to a question he didn't like was to repeat the non-answer more and more forcefully.
It would have been intimidating, were I capable of being intimidated.
They say every class football team needs one player capable of a crunching tackle.
I can see why Blair had Prescott in the cabinet with a roving role of deputy PM - very handy to be able to call on him as an attack dog.
I'd have him in my team.
|
Twitter and super injuctions - R.P.
