When did this whole injunction/super injunction thing start? Whatever happened to the whole paper prints something and if it’s not true they get sued for libel approach?

Did the last labour government bring this one in per chance?

Whatever happened to the whole paper prints something and if it’s not true the get sued for libel approach?

I think things have moved on. I blame Al Gore.

It is a consequence of a rather civilised European law. Parliament knew all about it. Newspapers are being childish. Some cases (Fred Goodwin, Trafigura, Andrew Marr) mean something important. But who gives a toss about which footballer is spit-roasting who?

And I don’t necessarily equate juicy gossip with freedom of speech/ freedom of press btw.

The injunctions, broadly, have got nothing to do with libel – the truth of the stories isn’t being disputed it their invasiveness. Anyone, no matter how public their profile has a right to some privacy.

What right have we got to know what Fred Goodwin gets up to in bed, just bacause he’s Fred Goodwin. But if the press demands to have that right, where does it stop? Do we stream live videos of him having a shit? Because thats what he deserves for having a name and face we recognise?

This week the noble company fronted by Rupert Murdoch that upholds our Liberties and protects us from the rich and powerful has been taken to court twice. Once for contempt of court and once for the illegal phone tapping.
Do any of us really have the right to know who is sleeping with who and what they get up to? Go ask your neighbour and see how open they are about this. News international has challenged the most famous one on the grounds that it is common knowledge they have never claimed a public interest in this case.
I dont see this as gagging the press tbh as self policing has not stopped this shower of shits from behaving like ****

What I think’s really interesting personally is the abuse of parliamentary privilege on the Goodwin story.

Parliament makes the law- the courts enforce it. If parliament doesn’t like the law, they can change it… but this situation where the courts enforce the law and an MP can say “Nah, I don’t like that you’ve enforced the law, I’ll overturn it and then play the immunity card” seems just disgusting. Yet he’s almost been hailed as a hero, because nobody likes Fred Goodwin.

If Fred Goodwin was knocking off someone senior in the same company in a way which breached the corporate governance rules of what had become a publicly owned company – especially as she is alleged to have been promoted twice during that time – I think that is a matter of public interest. And the MPs are accountable to us – and not directly accountable to the Judiciary in this area…

Andrew Marr being a prize hypocrite in the way he was really personally intrusive in questioning whether Gordon Brown was on anti-depressants etc etc… is another great example of a bad use of an injunction.

But – I think Junkyard is spot on about the hypocrisy inherent in some news organisation’s stance…

Nobody knows when it started I think there is an injection out on that one.

I firmly believe in the rights of the press to investigate and publish stories of genuine public interest such as the pollution in Africa that kicked most of this out. However I doubt anybody can claim there is genuine reason for exposing footballers for scoring in the away end except to sell crap newspapers.

The last footballer one seems to have come about after the lass in question tried to sell her story to the papers. A lack of moral high ground all round there