Re: Fred Goodwin gets superinjunction to stop him being called a banker
 

But the rich celebs can afford a decent solicitor and a brief to take the papers to court.The ordinary punter can't and therefore they have to rely on the press council to ensure their rights to privacy.Fat lot of good that usually does..

In a liberal society it isn't necessary to hide the fact that you have taken out an injunction against someone.That way madness lies and a group of people who can hide nefarious doings that it might be in the public's interest to know.

Like who bought a duck house on expenses..;)

Re: Fred Goodwin gets superinjunction to stop him being called a banker
 

Which is why we now have super-injunctions. But don't forget, the reason the solicitors were involved in the first place was the "invasion of privacy" stories the press were running about celebs.

What goes around, comes around.

Re: Fred Goodwin gets superinjunction to stop him being called a banker
 

Not in the slightest - that would break the initial injunction.

However did we get by for so long when people with enough money couldn't hire lawyers to go to a judge and say 'Mr X wants an injunction, not for anything specific, he just wants one about pretty much everything to do with him.

It's ridiculous, it's illiberal, it's basically the rich throwing their weight around using the legal system which I'm not a fan of at all.

I have absolutely no problem with injunctions over specific matters but they should be precisely that - specific - not generic because someone with money feels besmirched.

Happens probably quite a lot more than we know, this one is just especially ridiculous and thanks to parliamentary privilege out in the open. We've found a use for the HoC at last.

Re: Fred Goodwin gets superinjunction to stop him being called a banker
 

I think one of us is a bit confused. ;)

An injunction prevents a story being written (for example). However, the press can still report on the existence of the injunction.

A super-injunction prevents reporting of the existence of an injunction. Unless, of course, an MP says something about it in Parliament.

Re: Fred Goodwin gets superinjunction to stop him being called a banker
 

Which is illiberal and not something anyone wants to see.Using the media as the bad guy is counter productive to public interest.

Re: Fred Goodwin gets superinjunction to stop him being called a banker
 

You rather give the story away when you discuss the existence of an injunction to prevent reporting that story.

Reporting the existence of an injunction I don't see a problem with, nor do I see a problem with specific injunctions, I do very much have a problem with widely encompassing injunctions. No place in a free society. Purely my opinion.

Re: Fred Goodwin gets superinjunction to stop him being called a banker
 

Invasion of privacy is just as bad as illiberal laws - perhaps worse.

So you wouldn't have a problem with a headline such as this:

Re: Fred Goodwin gets superinjunction to stop him being called a banker
 

As I said that headline would break the original injunction.

Re: Fred Goodwin gets superinjunction to stop him being called a banker
 

You realise that's nowhere near snappy enough for the NOTW front page don't you?.... ;)

Re: Fred Goodwin gets superinjunction to stop him being called a banker
 

Max gets whipped up into a l(e)ather about hooky hookers?

Re: Fred Goodwin gets superinjunction to stop him being called a banker
 

No, it would not. Can you provide a source for your opinion? Here is one that backs mine:

http://lawandmedicine.wordpress.com/...perinjunction/

The injunction prevents the act. The super-injunction prevents reporting of the injunction. Simple, really.

Re: Fred Goodwin gets superinjunction to stop him being called a banker
 

Commenting on why the injunction was put in place is discussion of the subject matter. Shaky ground to say the least.

A lot of difference between 'X obtained an injunction.'. and 'X obtained an injunction to prevent discussion of Y.'.

The quote you give above is irrelevant. That Marr chose to ensure the fact he had obtained an injunction couldn't be divulged isn't relevant. Had someone discussed the material he obtained the injunction on, and noted that an injunction had been obtained for specific reasons and given them, they wouldn't have been on shaky ground.

Celebrities with money getting ultra-defensive and wanting to ensure that their defensiveness can't be discussed in any way. Not a lot else to say.

A specific injunction to ensure privacy is cool, something so wide ranging that it just gets ridiculous not so much. A former head of RBS having such an encompassing injunction that he can't be referred to as a banker is ridiculous. Stupidly wide injunction, no need, shouldn't have been granted.

Re: Fred Goodwin gets superinjunction to stop him being called a banker
 

Here comes the hyper-injunctions:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ing-to-MP.html

Re: Fred Goodwin gets superinjunction to stop him being called a banker
 

I wonder if some of us will think that this can be laid solely at the feet of the media when in this case it had nothing to do with the privacy of a celebrity..but was a gagging order to protect a corporation from being sued quite rightly for offences against public safety plus it actually goes against the HUMAN rights of the gagged to actually speak to their MP,enshrined in British law..

There is privacy and then there is secrecy..

Re: Fred Goodwin gets superinjunction to stop him being called a banker
 

This particular case can't "be laid soley at the feet of the media", but the general principle can. Are you surprised that well-paid lawyers are taking advantage of a legal precedent?