Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNorm
Yes it is - to avoid headlines such as "Max Mosley gets injunction to stop articles about his sadomasochistic sex acts with prostitutes".
|
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.