Jump to content

Superinjunctions


Mutley
 Share

Recommended Posts

You just dont get it do you? It's Uni that will get into trouble, not you, you selfish little jerks. If MF legal person is telling to proceed with care, it is probably because neither he nor Uni have the time or money to be bothered fighting an unnecessary legal case, which although unlikely is not a dead cert. So you are willing to pay Johns fees for bailing uni out for your foolish posts? behave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The really ridiculous thing about this is that the player has taken what would have been a 24 hour news cycle story and turned it into a 2 month news cycle, getting more publicity that it would have done if it was the front page splash for one day.

 

Coupled with the fact that his wife will now know about the extraordinary lengths that he has gone to to prevent her from finding out - it's all very sad.

 

I'd also be asking Schillings for a refund - having paid £ks for legal advice and court action, you would have thought someone might have remembered to file in Scotland too, hence why the Sunday Herald were able to run with the story AND name the individual.

 

BUT - the real issue with superinjuctions, which concerns me, is not which footballer/ actor/ celebrity is shagging who, but what corporate injuctions are in place to stop stories which would have REAL public interest angles, such as the one relating to Trafigura and the dumping of waste in the Ivory Coast, which was broken by Parliamentary Privilege also, despite Carter-Ruck's best efforts to stop the reporting of the debate in the HoC.

 

The issue with the celebrity angle is that it is things the public would be interested in, not necessarily public interest, whereby most corporate injunctions are to stop things being reported that would almost certainly be public interest, but perhaps of no interest to the public, apart from certain individual groups.

 

In any case, it is up to Parliament to legislate, not for the Judicial System (or specifically, Justice Eady) to implement a unwritten privacy law in the UK on the basis of case-law which he himself is helping to build.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BUT - the real issue with superinjuctions, which concerns me, is not which footballer/ actor/ celebrity is shagging who, but what corporate injuctions are in place to stop stories which would have REAL public interest angles, such as the one relating to Trafigura and the dumping of waste in the Ivory Coast, which was broken by Parliamentary Privilege also, despite Carter-Ruck's best efforts to stop the reporting of the debate in the HoC.

 

Great point, sadly we are more concerned by a couple of ugly rutting Taffies that the really bad stuff going on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great point, sadly we are more concerned by a couple of ugly rutting Taffies that the really bad stuff going on.

 

Which ties in with the watching of X-factor, spoon fed rubbish, just as, Max Clifford & Rupert Murdoch are entertaining the masses with puppet celebrities. Someone must buy these papers, the shelves are full of "Jordan & Peter", maybe I'm just getting old, I preferred when TV had personalities rather than celebrities. FWIW, I think there should be a total ban on news papers talking about any persons sex life, it's a bit weird that so many people care enough to buy the papers anyway.

 

Declan, I'm not sure someone who directly or indirectly owes loads of money to the Manx people and the Manx Government would have much of a leg to stand on, and nor should he. I think the mad cap ideas have already cost the islands community enough, to attempt any such act against MF or its posters would be tantamount to treason ;)

Edited by thebees
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it quite heartening that so many people still value the freedom of the press enough to put themselves in the firing line by reposting the name on Twitter or elsewhere (as long as they don't rope in sites like MF who don't have a dedicated legal department!). Those people have sent as clear a message as could be conceived to their elected representatives that they will not tolerate their courts being misused in this way by those rich enough to do so. Well done also to John Hemming who used parliamentary privilege to thumb his nose at the injunction and faced what I consider to be unwarranted censure from the Speaker: some rare positive news for the Lib Dems!

 

As for the footballer concerned: as long as he sticks a few balls into Barcelona's net on Saturday I couldn't care less about where he's been sticking his todger, but however unedifying the subject matter may be in this case there's an important matter of principle at stake. The law in this area needs to be brought quickly into line with the expectations of the people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it quite heartening that so many people still value the freedom of the press enough to put themselves in the firing line by reposting the name on Twitter or elsewhere (as long as they don't rope in sites like MF who don't have a dedicated legal department!). Those people have sent as clear a message as could be conceived to their elected representatives that they will not tolerate their courts being misused in this way by those rich enough to do so. Well done also to John Hemming who used parliamentary privilege to thumb his nose at the injunction and faced what I consider to be unwarranted censure from the Speaker: some rare positive news for the Lib Dems!

 

As for the footballer concerned: as long as he sticks a few balls into Barcelona's net on Saturday I couldn't care less about where he's been sticking his todger, but however unedifying the subject matter may be in this case there's an important matter of principle at stake. The law in this area needs to be brought quickly into line with the expectations of the people.

 

 

I disagree in this instance. I have no concern about Giggs's name being reported in principle once he sort an injunction but equally I am against people like Imogen Thomas, The Sun trying to make money out of what is essentially a private matter in this case. There is no real public interest defence in the story as even the court admitted when it went to court

 

John Hemming is in my view a publicity seeker and I think he abused parliamentry priviledge in this case. As he said it was widely known so what was there to gain my saying what he did. All his actions are likely to result in are possibly a potential weakening of Parliamentary priviledge so it is not there when it is needed.

 

I do think that the whole law needs looking at as it concerns me what is happening is that whoever leaks or posts on Twitter, the news gets spread, somebody gets named in Parliament so in effect overturning the court order. That may be fairly inconsequential in this case but there are many times it might be. That has to be resolved now. I think the edditorial in the Guardian this monrnig was good.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/24/privacy-high-politics-low-gossip?intcmp=239

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am against people like Imogen Thomas, The Sun trying to make money out of what is essentially a private matter in this case.

 

To be honest I have little sympathy for any supposed distress caused to either party: if you play with fire you're going to get burned.

 

It's a shame that this issue has come up in the context of such a tawdry story, but I think its dangerous to make the courts an arbiter of what is worthy and what isn't. If something's true and their aren't compelling reasons for it to be suppressed then it should be publishable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am against people like Imogen Thomas, The Sun trying to make money out of what is essentially a private matter in this case.

 

To be honest I have little sympathy for any supposed distress caused to either party: if you play with fire you're going to get burned.

 

It's a shame that this issue has come up in the context of such a tawdry story, but I think its dangerous to make the courts an arbiter of what is worthy and what isn't. If something's true and their aren't compelling reasons for it to be suppressed then it should be publishable.

 

The problem is though that parliament passed the laws that gave individuals certain rights to privacy. So in this case the compelling reason not to publish is that it would be breaking the law with regards to the individuals right to privacy if they published. In addition the Press Complaints Council have also said that under their rules the story should not have been published as there was no public interest. The PCC though is a toothless watchdog. You may disagree with this but Parliament made the laws the judiciary are purely upholding.

 

Ultimatly I agree it is a shame that this issue has come up in this context but it is right that it is looked at and open to challenge because otherwise it is giving a green light for any matter to be "leaked" by the press or an interested party so it gets on Twitter or other social media to get around the law. It may not matter much in this case but if it resulted in the collapse of a murder or other serious trial it would. Presently twitter and its users appear to think that rules do not apply to them. I think it should be made clear they do until the law changes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is though that parliament passed the laws that gave individuals certain rights to privacy. So in this case the compelling reason not to publish is that it would be breaking the law with regards to the individuals right to privacy if they published. You may disagree with this but Parliament made the laws the judiciary are purely upholding.

 

Parliament did nothing of the sort: There is still no free standing right to privacy under English law. The Human Rights Act falls a long way short of granting that and Parliament should have clamped down far earlier on the judiciary's overextension of the HRA. Arguably judges must legislate "interstitially" - cautiously filling in the gaps inevitably present in legislation according to their understanding of Parliament's intentions in order to resolve the cases before them - but in this area they have been far too bold.

 

Ultimatly I agree it is a shame that this issue has come up in this context but it is right that it is looked at and open to challenge because otherwise it is giving a green light for any matter to be "leaked" by the press or an interested party so it gets on Twitter or other social media to get around the law. It may not matter much in this case but if it resulted in the collapse of a murder or other serious trial it would. Presently twitter and its users appear to think that rules do not apply to them. I think it should be made clear they do until the law changes

 

I think you do the British public a disservice: most would see a clear distinction between compromising the integrity of a criminal trial and airing the dirty laundry of a prominent footballer. No one would condone a juror publishing details of jury deliberations on a social networking site, but civil disobedience would seem a valid approach to highlight a ridiculous application of a daft law in a way which effectively seeks to regulate gossip about the rich and powerful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...