Superinjunctions

[MarillionFan]

If it's contempt of court to state what is in the public domain, that is - the fact that searching for #superinjunction would possibly reveal information about a super injunction, and that said search on a public site leads you to many users, one of which is here: Twitter ...then let them try and sue me.

In addition I heard that Jordan is a dirty slapper who is shagging some Argentinian fella having been married to a cage fighter and a singer.

 

[MarillionFan]

Anyway - how do we know whether that user isn't just making up those names?

AtW was caught shagging two Hollywood A-Lister female stars by a top famous Film Director all of whom have taken out a superinjunction to stop them being named.

Well, least that's what he told me.

 

[Pondlife]

In addition I heard that Jordan is a dirty slapper who is shagging some Argentinian fella having been married to a cage fighter and a singer.

I'm not sure the contents of a superinjunction and hello magazine are the same thing, although I may be wrong.

 

[MarillionFan]

Anyway - how do we know whether that user isn't just making up those names?

Based on the fact that the Mail has posted an article up linking to the tweet account, showing it editted and stating that 'someone' has named a load of people in the superinjunctions means you can take that as clarification that someone did just name the correct people. If it was a hoax(which the press would have known was untrue) then they wouldn't have confirmed it.

So in fact I reckon the Mail just shot itself in the foot by putting the article up and confirming it and is now in contempt.

Nick, you got two birds with one stone by starting that Twitter account!

 

[AtW]

Nick, you got two birds with one stone by starting that Twitter account!

 

[russell]

Giggs might want to have a look at that divorce lawyer thread
Now we know the real reason he was doing yoga

 

[AtW]

Giggs might want to have a look at that divorce lawyer thread
Now we know the real reason he was doing yoga

Did you get that superinjunction yet to prevent you being called a sockie?

 

[NickFitz]

Based on the fact that the Mail has posted an article up linking to the tweet account, showing it editted and stating that 'someone' has named a load of people in the superinjunctions means you can take that as clarification that someone did just name the correct people. If it was a hoax(which the press would have known was untrue) then they wouldn't have confirmed it.

As I pointed out earlier, the Mail got the wrong account - the one they show is in fact a parody of the one that names names. Typical Mail fail

 

[OwlHoot]

What puzzles me is where these upstart judges get the idea they can dictate what is and is not discussed in Parliament.

I thought MPs' discussions in Parliament were privileged, and immune from suit. In fact I'm sure they are.

Maybe the Mail got that part wrong, if such a thing can be believed.

 

[d000hg]

Well, it's in the papers now

As usual, the Mail gets it wrong

Perhaps you might have posted a link to a solid report in your first post, which would also have explained what on earth you were on about