We appear to be sailing a bit too close to the wind at times and I am fearful of lawyers. They cost time and money, both of which we don't like parting with. So here are some rules regarding injunctions to save the potential of slapping posters without prior warning. This is your warning. If you haven't read it like you don't read your infractions (I'm looking to you Troll) then we absolve ourselves of all responsibility.
If a thread about injunctions identifies (or hints at the identification of) the subject, then the thread will be deleted. If it's too obvious hint the poster of said hint will also gain a 1 point infraction.
If a thread about a subject mentions injunctions, then the same measure is applied.
For example, let's suppose that Lemmy had won an injunction to prevent a story concerning a three-way between Val Doonican, Mother Theresa and himself in a bath full of pork dripping but news had leaked into the public domain, then a thread about Lemmy and his love of the film Grease, or that he was a fan of nuns and cardigans would be fine. If someone were to mention an injunction in that thread then the thread would be removed and an infraction given to the person who mentioned the injunction.
Please play the game in good spirit. We don't want to fall foul of people with knowledge of the law.
-
Do not make posts concerning matters subject to court injunctions.
We've had a couple of threads removed now, because some individuals can't tell the difference between discussing an injunction and violating it.
Living in Scotland may prevent you getting sued, but it won't protect CUK.
Any further attempts to see how far you can push it will be met with bans. Duration of which may well be determined by the court of appeals.
Yes, it's a dumb injunction. Yes, it shouldn't ever have been granted. Yes, it's easy to find out who the subjects are. No - you may not hint at it here. For the protection of the site.
Leave a comment: