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'

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

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

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

No, this one.

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

This looks bad. WHat are they hiding? Expenses or wrongly claimed mortgage costs?



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

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?

The last two paragraphs are priceless actually

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.

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

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...

Rumours of my getting a superinjuction are of course completely untrue.