Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Er, Ryan Giggs outed about a month ago on twitter and other blogs, but more to the point, who cares about how a pigtulip thick runt like a footballer who couldn't keep his shrivelled pen1s inside his shorts but stuck it inside a retarded z-list celeb.
The point about this though is that now it's been said in Parliament, under Parliamentary Priviledge, it's a matter of public record and the Injunction has effectively been bypassed so the press can talk about it now.
"Being nice costs nothing and sometimes gets you extra bacon" - Pondlife.
I salute the brave moderators of this thread! God bless you and your unselfish fight for free speech! You laugh in the face of prison and fart in the general direction of potentially bankrupting defamation cases. We stand firmly behind you.
The point about this though is that now it's been said in Parliament, under Parliamentary Priviledge, it's a matter of public record and the Injunction has effectively been bypassed so the press can talk about it now.
Well, no, actually; there's nothing in law to say that there is a right to report Parliamentary proceedings that overrides the restrictions imposed by a court order. So far the Grauniad's and the Sun's lawyers have decided to go ahead and publish the name (possibly others by now, but they're the ones I know of), but they could well be found to be in contempt of court for doing so. It is a, shall we say, "courageous" decision on their part.
The point about this though is that now it's been said in Parliament, under Parliamentary Priviledge, it's a matter of public record and the Injunction has effectively been bypassed so the press can talk about it now.
Who cares about the press, DaveB? Seriously?
We can forget about the good and the bold of fabled Woodward and Bernstein, they are now an anachronism in the paradigm of new media, where copy is the new agenda, favours, improving circulation rates and political massaging are the new found fiends.
Public awareness and accountability are the bane of politicians: it's abhorrent to them. Give the proletariat panem et circenses, as is the way for centuries.
Never let the poor, downtrodden populace think for themselves or our “elected” new master’s wealth will be exposed for the self-centred troughing that it is.
Cancel your telly licence, ignore the census, withdraw your consumerism, fight the political correct nonsense of the Righteous if you value your children’s future.
The horn of plenty is just about empty.
If you think my attitude stinks, you should smell my fingers.
Well, no, actually; there's nothing in law to say that there is a right to report Parliamentary proceedings that overrides the restrictions imposed by a court order. So far the Grauniad's and the Sun's lawyers have decided to go ahead and publish the name (possibly others by now, but they're the ones I know of), but they could well be found to be in contempt of court for doing so. It is a, shall we say, "courageous" decision on their part.
Journalists who report on Parliamentary debates on subjects covered by court gagging orders could be in contempt of court, a committee of judges and legal experts has said.
Behold the warranty -- the bold print giveth and the fine print taketh away.
Well, no, actually; there's nothing in law to say that there is a right to report Parliamentary proceedings that overrides the restrictions imposed by a court order. So far the Grauniad's and the Sun's lawyers have decided to go ahead and publish the name (possibly others by now, but they're the ones I know of), but they could well be found to be in contempt of court for doing so. It is a, shall we say, "courageous" decision on their part.
Which is interesting because a few hours ago they had a headline saying they were still gagged , had been to court and the judge had said to them that they still could not report the affair, and now they've gone with this headline which is slightly different.
So basically they cannot print the story about an affair, but they can name him as the idiot who has taken on Twitter.
Comment