Reply to: Superinjunctions

[doodab]

News is news, publish and be damned I say, Britain needs someone to take this bulltulip on head on, become a cause celebre and have people take to the streets in a popular uprising until the whole superinjunction culture is stamped out.

I expect such a campaign would get quite a lot of support because people love celebrity gossip.

[NotAllThere]

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.

Contempt of court doesn't get you sued - it's a crime against the judicial system. It gets you big fines and jail terms. It's wide open to abuse. Fortunately, the judges don't use it often.

The Uk has an extradition treaty with Switzerland you know.

Silly. No crime has been committed on UK territory. That's why the UK won't extradite the journalists of the local rag breaching these injunctions.

[MarillionFan]

Great. Posted on an expat site now.

The Uk has an extradition treaty with Switzerland you know.

Meet Bubba, your new cell mate.

[NotAllThere]

No but the publisher of this website and the web hosting company would be equally liable(*) if either have a presence in the UK.

* that is not exactly true but they would be liable if they did not remove the post as soon as they became aware of it.

Great. Posted on an expat site now.

[d000hg]

There weren't any "solid reports" at the time - news breaks on Twitter these days[*], you have to wait hours for MSM (mainstream media) to catch up

[*]E.g. "Helicopter hovering above Abbottabad at 1AM (is a rare event)."

Bah, Twitter isn't news.

grumble grumble, the world's not what it used to be, etc.

[eek]

As I don't live in the UK, am I still subject to a UK injunction?

No but the publisher of this website and the web hosting company would be equally liable(*) if either have a presence in the UK.

* that is not exactly true but they would be liable if they did not remove the post as soon as they became aware of it.

[NotAllThere]

As I don't live in the UK, am I still subject to a UK injunction?

[cojak]

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.

Whilst wearing a cape and mortarboard...

[NickFitz]

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

There weren't any "solid reports" at the time - news breaks on Twitter these days[*], you have to wait hours for MSM (mainstream media) to catch up

[*]E.g. "Helicopter hovering above Abbottabad at 1AM (is a rare event)."

[AtW]

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

Yes they are, however MPs need first to know the info in the first place and whoever (not MP) tells them that will break the super injuction...

It's about time for US style constituion - freedom of speech, right to bear firearms etc

[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

[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.

[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

[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?

[russell]

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