Fred Goodwin gets superinjunction to stop him being called a banker

Originally Posted by TheNorm

Well, you can thank the British press for the use of these laws. If they didn't print nude photographs of celebrities on honeymoon, or reveal details of the private life of the president of the FIA, the laws would never have been required.

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..

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

But the rich celebs can afford a decent solicitor ...

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.

[Ignitionnet]

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.

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

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

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.

Originally Posted by TheNorm

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.

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

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by TheNorm

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.

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.

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

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

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

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

...Reporting the existence of an injunction I don't see a problem with, ....

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

Originally Posted by TheNorm

..."Max Mosley gets injunction to stop articles about his sadomasochistic sex acts with prostitutes".

[Ignitionnet]

As I said that headline would break the original injunction.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by TheNorm

..Max Mosley gets injunction to stop articles about his sadomasochistic sex acts with prostitutes.

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

Originally Posted by Osem

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

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

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

As I said that headline would break the original injunction.

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

...BBC political commentator Andrew Marr obtained an injunction to prevent any discussion about something in Marr’s personal life. In addition to this, Marr obtained a ‘super injunction’ to prevent any reporting that an injunction had been obtained in the first place....

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

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

[Ignitionnet]

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.

[Sparkle]

Here comes the hyper-injunctions:

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

'Hyper-injunction' stops you talking to MP"
Voters are being barred from speaking to their MPs under a new generation of gagging orders known as hyper-injunctions, the House of Commons has been told.
Politicians criticised the injunctions as an "affront to democracy" after John Hemming, a Liberal Democrat MP, disclosed details of one on the floor of the Commons last week.

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..

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

I wonder if some of us will think that this can be laid solely at the feet of the media .......

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?