<edited>

[NotAllThere]

It may be wrong but it is legal. If you want to talk about it go to a forum that allows it.

We can't talk about the law on this forum?!

Yes. You can talk about the law on this forum. If you want to discuss the details of an injunction that are protected by that injunction - go somewhere else.

All clear for you now?

[scooterscot]

Was only talking about the law from the off. Some folks can only see red.

[FatLazyContractor]

Yes. You can talk about the law on this forum. If you want to discuss the details of an injunction that are protected by that injunction - go somewhere else.

All clear for you now?

And you get to choose who to ban and who not to ban when the offence committed is the same?

[scooterscot]

And you get to choose who to ban and who not to ban when the offence committed is the same?

Indeed. Power corrupts in all that.

[NotAllThere]

And you get to choose who to ban and who not to ban when the offence committed is the same?

Yep!

Indeed. Power corrupts in all that.

Nope. I started off corrupt.

[SlipTheJab]

I've just been by NAT


... again ...

[MrMarkyMark]

And you get to choose who to ban and who not to ban when the offence committed is the same?

Yep, if you are are in friend of admin nothing is seen.

It's just like the Masons, Iceland edition, rather than Fortnums, obviously.

[SimonMac]

Free speech no more. Brave new world.

The whole idea of an injunction used to project a bunch of slappers is arguable. We recognise rules are made to the benefit of society. But where the rule conflicts with the benefit it should be thrown out. Judges are making up privacy law as they go alone instead of parliament.

Who ever said we had free speech?

[stek]

I got my first infraction off Scotspine, what happened to him/her?

[northernladuk]

I got my first infraction off Scotspine, what happened to him/her?

I believe he suddenly realised he had morals and principles and also believed in fairness so handed his MOD privileges back immediately.