Viewing 21 posts - 1 through 21 (of 21 total)
  • May day may day we need a super dooper injunction
  • anagallis_arvensis
    Full Member

    he who shall not be named named in parliment

    DaRC_L
    Full Member

    Voltemort????
    I thought the next film wasn’t due out for a couple of months 😆

    carbon337
    Free Member

    Whats the legality of this – he isnt the media as such – he was talking in his workplace and i dont believe talking about it has been made illegal.

    He could claim that the filming of parliment is nothing to do with him so is in the clear.

    wwaswas
    Full Member

    From the BBC;

    “The court’s duty remains to try and protect the claimant, and particularly his family, from intrusion and harassment so long as it can.”

    If the ‘married footballer’ gave a toss about his family he’d have kept his trousers on…

    maccruiskeen
    Full Member

    Nothing at all show-boaty or self-serving about MP John Hemmings then. He could quite easily have raised the question without naming anyone. Is he on a back hander from Murdoch?

    anagallis_arvensis
    Full Member

    its parlimentary priviledge isnt it, he can say whatever he likes AFAIK

    Jamie
    Free Member

    …but how come some papers are reporting the name now then?

    jakeds
    Free Member

    Yeah, where’s the significance in an MP saying the name, how come the press have started reporting the name after that? Is it because it’s all a big joke, and it’s not exactly the most important story in the world?

    Stoner
    Free Member

    in theory the media can not be prevented from reporting parliamentary business. However, one of the judges looking into this area does emphasise that there still has to be a public benefit to the reporting rather than being salacious.

    With respect to Fred the shred that was probably the case. Its a bit tenuous in the CBT case. But I suppose the fact that the whole CBT injunction thing is so important that maybe that is sufficient.

    Jamie
    Free Member

    Is it because it’s all a big joke, and it’s not exactly the most important story in the world?

    I think it is what it represents, i.e parliament and the judiciary hitting each other with their handbags over who decides what, and is accountable, when it comes to privacy law.

    thebunk
    Full Member
    jonb
    Free Member

    WGAF which footballers are shagging z list celebrities?

    If the ‘married footballer’ gave a toss about his family he’d have kept his trousers on…

    what he said.

    ernie_lynch
    Free Member

    WGAF which footballers are shagging z list celebrities?

    A considerable portion of the British public care. That’s why Britain’s top selling newspapers specialise on that sort of stuff.

    mrmo
    Free Member

    so who’s getting outed next, A*** S****** and G**** L****?

    ilovemygears
    Free Member

    People that try and damage democracy should be shot.

    Northwind
    Full Member

    This is just the same story as with Fred Goodwin the other week. MPs have parliamentary privilege so he’s immune from prosecution, and once it’s in the public domain others can report on it.

    I don’t like this superinjunction stuff but the job of parliament is to make laws, the job of the courts is to use them. If MPs have an issue with the law, they have the remit to change that, rather than abuse their privilege to override the law of the land.

    nedrapier
    Full Member

    … and Gary Lineker? blimey.

    Jamie
    Free Member

    …and Alan Sugar apparently.

    aracer
    Free Member

    I understand the next people to be named in parliament will be HB, MR, UY and SG. Don’t ask me what those initials stand for, I couldn’t possibly tell you.

Viewing 21 posts - 1 through 21 (of 21 total)

The topic ‘May day may day we need a super dooper injunction’ is closed to new replies.