Fred Goodwin gets superinjunction to stop him being called a banker

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...nction-banking

The controversial former bank chief Sir Fred Goodwin is the latest high profile figure to obtain a superinjunction, it has emerged.
The existence of the measure – which bans the press from reporting that an injunction has been obtained – can be revealed after a backbench Liberal Democrat, John Hemming, raised the issue in the Commons.
"In a secret hearing this week Fred Goodwin has obtained a superinjunction preventing him being identified as a banker," said Hemming, the MP for Birmingham Yardley.

Hemming, who used parliamentary privilege to avoid the legal ban on reporting the use of superinjunctions, asked: "Will the government have a debate or a statement on freedom of speech and whether there's one rule for the rich like Fred Goodwin and one rule for the poor?"

Quite so..

[Ignitionnet]

Indeed. These injunctions are illiberal in the extreme and have no place in our or any other supposedly free society.

[Sparkle]

I wonder how long it will be before such injunctions are extended to include internet discussions.
My bet is that as soon as they possess the means to do so, they will.

[Peter_]

I personally identify him as something that rhymes with "Banker" to be honest, and what a one he is making himself out to be.

Originally Posted by Sparkle

I wonder how long it will be before such injunctions are extended to include internet discussions.
My bet is that as soon as they possess the means to do so, they will.

They already do.

The only reason this discussion is legally allowed to go ahead is because we're discussing something that was said in Parliament, where speech cannot be banned by the courts.

However, anything else covered by this injunction is not allowed to be discussed here. Not that it's likely such topics would come up, as you would probably have had to have been at the high court to know what they are.

[MartJ]

Yep the media where about to reveal that Fred the Shred is the evil Banker on Deal or No Deal.

OOPs that's the cat out of the bag now.

Originally Posted by Chris

They already do.

The only reason this discussion is legally allowed to go ahead is because we're discussing something that was said in Parliament, where speech cannot be banned by the courts.

However, anything else covered by this injunction is not allowed to be discussed here. Not that it's likely such topics would come up, as you would probably have had to have been at the high court to know what they are.

Thank goodness for Parliamentary privilege I say.At least it can be good for something once in a while..

[Hom3r]

Are you sure the injuction is the word "Banker", and not a misprint?

[nomadking]

Does that mean that the head of a football team is to be called a footballer? Would that person be expected to be directly responsible for any tactics used on the football field?

[bonzoe]

Whatever he likes to call himself, he made sure that his pockets were well lined with dosh! Can't possibly say what that makes him in my mind, he might take me to court..........

Originally Posted by Masque

I personally identify him as something that rhymes with "Banker" to be honest, and what a one he is making himself out to be.

I read somewhere that the collective term for a group of bankers is a wunch.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Hugh

I read somewhere that the collective term for a group of bankers is a wunch.

I thought it was a 'banquet'. So named as that's what they spend a lot of time doing....

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Indeed. These injunctions are illiberal in the extreme and have no place in our or any other supposedly free society.

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.

[Ignitionnet]

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.

The ability to have a massively encompassing injunction, including the existence of the injunction, isn't required - full stop.

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

The ability to have a massively encompassing injunction, including the existence of the injunction, isn't required - full stop.

Yes it is - to avoid headlines such as "Max Mosley gets injunction to stop articles about his sadomasochistic sex acts with prostitutes".