Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Twitter user in bid to break super-injunctions 
Author Message
Legend

Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:30 pm
Posts: 45931
Location: Belfast
Reply with quote
A Twitter user has tried to unmask some celebrities who have obtained super-injunctions to prevent publication of details of their private lives.

The Twitter user claimed to "out" a number of UK public figures, though the tweets appeared to contain errors.

Jemima Khan tweeted: "Rumour that I have a super injunction preventing publication of "intimate" photos of me and Jeremy Clarkson. NOT TRUE!"

The tweets will add to concerns over injunctions and non-mainstream media.

Some newspapers - and MPs - have attempted to challenge the court orders, suggesting it should be Parliament and not the courts which decide on the introduction of any privacy law.

Last month, Prime Minister David Cameron said the increasing use of such strict gagging orders made him feel uneasy.

A report by a committee set up by the Master of the Rolls will report on their use later this month.

BBC legal correspondent Clive Coleman said it will have to grapple with the issue of publication online.

"If it doesn't the super or secret-injunction may no longer be an effective tool in the administration of justice," he said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13330409

More from this outraged source:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ds-newsxml

;)

What I thought was funny was a few papers all printing the same story recently, all saying the man involved in taking out a super injunction was 'Shameless' :lol:

_________________
Plain English advice on everything money, purchase and service related:

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/


Mon May 09, 2011 10:42 am
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:29 pm
Posts: 5975
Reply with quote
I was shown an article in the DM on Sunday (and it is currently on their website) which was a strange and non-sensical profile of an actor who is apparently one of the ones who has a gagging order in force. In the concluding paragraph, he is compared to a certain footballer (who is another of the injunction merchants) for no other reason than to sneakily name them both. Very odd.

_________________
"I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet." - Stanislaw Lem


Mon May 09, 2011 10:50 am
Profile
Legend

Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:30 pm
Posts: 45931
Location: Belfast
Reply with quote
Paul1965 wrote:
I was shown an article in the DM on Sunday (and it is currently on their website) which was a strange and non-sensical profile of an actor who is apparently one of the ones who has a gagging order in force. In the concluding paragraph, he is compared to a certain footballer (who is another of the injunction merchants) for no other reason than to sneakily name them both. Very odd.


All they do is increase speculation and therefore interest, even with something as 'dull' (not how I'd personally describe it) as Trafigura. They completely ignore how modern society works these days, and indeed pre-internet take up :roll:

_________________
Plain English advice on everything money, purchase and service related:

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/


Mon May 09, 2011 10:55 am
Profile
Legend

Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:30 pm
Posts: 45931
Location: Belfast
Reply with quote
Quote:
Privacy injunctions have also produced a wave of false internet allegations against film star Ewan McGregor, wrongly identified as the actor who shared a prostitute with Wayne Rooney.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... earer.html

That might be what you were talking about Paul...

_________________
Plain English advice on everything money, purchase and service related:

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/


Mon May 09, 2011 11:00 am
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:29 pm
Posts: 5975
Reply with quote
No, this one.

Read the surreal last paragraph. Notice how it's one of the few stories not accepting comments 'for legal reasons.' ;)

_________________
"I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet." - Stanislaw Lem


Mon May 09, 2011 11:23 am
Profile
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am
Posts: 29240
Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
Reply with quote
This looks bad. WHat are they hiding? Expenses or wrongly claimed mortgage costs?

Image

Also rumours of my being awarded a super injunction are not true. ;)

_________________
Do concentrate, 007...

"You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds."

https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTk

http://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21


Mon May 09, 2011 12:09 pm
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 6:06 pm
Posts: 6355
Location: IoW
Reply with quote
The icing on the cake will be that the injunction somehow circumvents the public domain and prevents disclosure of some dastardly expenses fiddle, by a senior MP; only for it to blown out of the water by someone on Twitter.

What? I can hope can't I?

_________________
Before you judge a man, walk a mile in his shoes; after that, who cares?! He's a mile away and you've got his shoes!


Mon May 09, 2011 12:22 pm
Profile
Legend

Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:30 pm
Posts: 45931
Location: Belfast
Reply with quote
Paul1965 wrote:
No, this one.

Read the surreal last paragraph. Notice how it's one of the few stories not accepting comments 'for legal reasons.' ;)


The last two paragraphs are priceless actually :lol:

_________________
Plain English advice on everything money, purchase and service related:

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/


Mon May 09, 2011 12:29 pm
Profile
Legend

Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:30 pm
Posts: 45931
Location: Belfast
Reply with quote
Can an MP use parliamentary privilege to break an injunction, unknowingly or whatever? :?

_________________
Plain English advice on everything money, purchase and service related:

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/


Mon May 09, 2011 12:32 pm
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:26 pm
Posts: 17040
Reply with quote
pcernie wrote:
Can an MP use parliamentary privilege to break an injunction, unknowingly or whatever? :?

I have a feeling parliamentary privilege only allows representatives immunity from civil proceedings i.e. they can't be sued for what they say in the HoC or HoL. Revealing the Owner?Subject?LItigant? of a superinjunction once it has been put into force would be Contempt of Court, which is a criminal offense and might still apply. I certainly wouldn't want to risk going to jail just to reveal that [CENSORED] [CENSORED] has been playing away from home.

Although the whole thing is pretty much a farce now anyway. If you're at all interested, you can find out who the holders of superinjunctions are. They're at best a temporary block on the information being made public.


Mon May 09, 2011 12:41 pm
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 1:03 pm
Posts: 5041
Location: London
Reply with quote
jonbwfc wrote:
pcernie wrote:
Can an MP use parliamentary privilege to break an injunction, unknowingly or whatever? :?

I have a feeling parliamentary privilege only allows representatives immunity from civil proceedings i.e. they can't be sued for what they say in the HoC or HoL. Revealing the Owner?Subject?LItigant? of a superinjunction once it has been put into force would be Contempt of Court, which is a criminal offense and might still apply. I certainly wouldn't want to risk going to jail just to reveal that [CENSORED] [CENSORED] has been playing away from home.

Although the whole thing is pretty much a farce now anyway. If you're at all interested, you can find out who the holders of superinjunctions are. They're at best a temporary block on the information being made public.


Quote:
from wiki

In the United Kingdom, it allows members of the House of Lords and House of Commons to speak freely during ordinary parliamentary proceedings without fear of legal action on the grounds of slander, contempt of court or breaching the Official Secrets Act.[1][2] It also means that members of Parliament cannot be arrested on civil matters for statements made or acts undertaken as an MP within the grounds of the Palace of Westminster, on the condition that such statements or acts occur as part of a proceeding in Parliament - for example, as a question to the Prime Minister in the House of Commons. This allows Members to raise questions or debate issues which could slander an individual, interfere with an ongoing court case or threaten to reveal state secrets, such as in the Zircon affair or several cases involving the Labour MP Tam Dalyell.

_________________
John_Vella wrote:
OK, so all we need to do is find a half African, half Chinese, half Asian, gay, one eyed, wheelchair bound dwarf with tourettes and a lisp, and a st st stutter and we could make the best panel show ever.


Mon May 09, 2011 1:30 pm
Profile
Legend

Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:30 pm
Posts: 45931
Location: Belfast
Reply with quote
hifidelity2 wrote:
Quote:
from wiki

In the United Kingdom, it allows members of the House of Lords and House of Commons to speak freely during ordinary parliamentary proceedings without fear of legal action on the grounds of slander, contempt of court or breaching the Official Secrets Act.[1][2] It also means that members of Parliament cannot be arrested on civil matters for statements made or acts undertaken as an MP within the grounds of the Palace of Westminster, on the condition that such statements or acts occur as part of a proceeding in Parliament - for example, as a question to the Prime Minister in the House of Commons. This allows Members to raise questions or debate issues which could slander an individual, interfere with an ongoing court case or threaten to reveal state secrets, such as in the Zircon affair or several cases involving the Labour MP Tam Dalyell.


As an MP I'd be looking to name every tw@ possible, just for a laugh :lol: , and to make a mockery of the likes of 'Justice' Eady...

_________________
Plain English advice on everything money, purchase and service related:

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/


Mon May 09, 2011 1:43 pm
Profile
Spends far too much time on here
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:44 pm
Posts: 4141
Location: Exeter
Reply with quote
Interesting, if an MP has asked something in the House that comes under the grounds of Privilege, does Hansard get the same protection in reporting it, or BBC Parliament in their coverage?

_________________
"The woman is a riddle inside a mystery wrapped in an enigma I've had sex with."


Mon May 09, 2011 1:52 pm
Profile WWW
Legend

Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:30 pm
Posts: 45931
Location: Belfast
Reply with quote
jonlumb wrote:
Interesting, if an MP has asked something in the House that comes under the grounds of Privilege, does Hansard get the same protection in reporting it, or BBC Parliament in their coverage?


Good point, as Hansard came up in in the Trafigura case as I recall...

_________________
Plain English advice on everything money, purchase and service related:

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/


Mon May 09, 2011 1:57 pm
Profile
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am
Posts: 29240
Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
Reply with quote
Rumours of my getting a superinjuction are of course completely untrue. ;)

_________________
Do concentrate, 007...

"You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds."

https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTk

http://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21


Mon May 09, 2011 2:00 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software.