[Closed] Super-injunction

I could tell you but I'd have to kill you.

I know but I'm not allowed to tell you who it is, or to tell you that I know but that I'm now allowed to tell you. Luckily I'm allowed to tell you that I'm not allowed to tell you that I know but I'm not allowed to tell you... For now...

Man we have to be united on this

sir ryan giggs

yeahh, elfinman knows too much about my tedious past, so I called up super-cynic-al to put an injuction on his ass. But then they argued, and I came out with some cheap worn handlebar grips. not before TJ and Ernie got there dues. bastards.

will i go to jail for this?

{Not now! we removed the link just in case! - Mod}

and Andrew marr, the naughty flappy armed man

guido fawkes and private eye have been publishing about the Marr thing for months anyway.

Anyone with access to google, at least one finger (or a particularly adept other body extremity) and a minimal amount of brain activity can find any number of places reporting them all.

I concur.

There are known knowns; there are things we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know

What about the other one, the one that no-one can ever ever talk about, ever, at all?

What's that about then?

Just what you said. It's a ban, a worldwide one as well, preventing people from talking or publishing about whatever it was that might or might not have happened between someone and someone else.

Media outlets are not supposed to report super injunctions, right. But if you don't know if one exists how do you know if you're in breach?

CaptJon - they have to write to all press agencies worldwide saying, in graphic detail, what they're not allowed to report

alternatively, they can email me and I'll make sure it gets done

It's a ban, a worldwide one as well

How can that possibly be enforced?

Now I can see how you could in - say - Europe or the US, but how would you stop someone like Gaddafi or Kim Jong-il broadcasting it worldwide if they really wanted to?

But if you don't know if one exists how do you know if you're in breach?

Ignorance is no defence?

It can't be enforced at all worldwide

A lot of people seem appalled that a super-injunction prevents someone talking to their MP on the subject. And while this does seem a bit dubious in a (supposed) democracy, why would you want to discuss which footballer had been nobbing you with your MP?

binners - I dont think it injuncts discussion, only publication.
And a super injunction is just an injunction that you cant publish the existence of.

the ETK and footballer cases arent superinjunctions. They are normal injunctions.

It can't be enforced at all worldwide

In the age of t'internet, I doubt you'd be able to enforce it at the end of your steet TJ

How much was your super-injunction in legal fees? And is it Alex Salmond or Neil Lennon 😉

Stoner. Its more than that. From the Torygraph

Far more significant, and much more insidious, is the use of super-injunctions to prevent ordinary citizens from talking to their MPs. The right to petition Parliament or the monarch through your MP is one of the oldest and most important that we have. Parliamentary democracy cannot work if MPs cannot respond to their constituents' concerns – or even know what they are. By diminishing citizens' ability to talk to their MPs, super-injunctions diminish democracy. You can't get a much more important matter than that.

Why do judges grant super-injunctions that instruct individuals not to raise certain matters with their MP, threatening dire punishments if they do? The demand for secrecy usually (though not exclusively) from the family courts, which are already shrouded from public scrutiny, and whose standard of justice is extremely low as a consequence.

Let's grant that there is a strong case for preventing the identification of children who are victims of violence or abuse. Does that justify a super-injunction preventing a parent who believes they have been wrongly accused, or convicted, and who has been separated from their children, from petitioning their MP to try to set the record straight?

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/alasdair-palmer/8440141/Super-injunctions-are-suppressing-the-voters-rights.html ]Democratic? Apparently so[/url]

How much was your super-injunction in legal fees? And is it Alex Salmond or Neil Lennon

too expensive so I gave up. Both of them and Annie Lennox and Sean Connnery but we made Alex Ferguson wait outside

Was that not overturned almost immediately Binners?

you sure he's not making stuff up for editorial purposes. Cant say Ive ever heard of an injunction specifically preventing the discussion of a subject with an MP.

I know there was the MP that named an injunctee (RBS Banker chap wasnt it?) in the HoP under parliamentary privilage so that it could then be reported safely. That follows the trafigura injunction which was also mentioned in parliament for the same reason.

Still stands apparently TJ. What worries me is that everyone's on about who's shagging who, but the original super-injunction was to stop the Guardian publishing information about Trafigura dumping toxic waste in Africa

Altogether a much more serious matter. How do we know there aren't similar one's out there? We don't

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafigura ]Waste dumping[/url]

How do we know there aren't similar one's out there? We don't

there probably are more out there BUT someone who has been injuncted can usually find a way to leak the information that they posess but injuncted from publishing if they reall want to. Guardian almost certainly complicit in the trafigura wikileak/parliament leak.

Stoner - there deffo was an injunction that stopped the person involved speaking to their mp - precisely to stop the MP speaking out in the HOP.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/03/henry-porter-hyperinjunctions?INTCMP=SRCH

ahh. passed me by that one.

"Hyperinjunction" ha!

Im holding out for a "megainjunction": if you even think about who did what to who the come and zap your brain with electrodes.

Binners if you think the media are up in arms because I can no longer petition my MP rather than because they can no longer intrude into peoples private lifes and print the details across the red rags then you are very much deluded.
Itfind it amusing to see one bunch of drug fuelled shagging hypocrits getting frustrated because they cannot print about who other more famous people are shagging. My ability to affect deomcracy is a long way down the list of reasons as to why they want the power to print whatever they feel like about whomever they want whatever the personal cost to that individual may be
Remember the landlord and the recent Bristol [??]murder that is what they did to someone innocent FFS Scumbags IMHO

Couldn't agree with you more Junkyard. I've little time for tabloid bleating. They're the lowest form of human life. Interestingly Max Clifford said, in the past, when one of his clients was threatened with exposure by a tabloid, he'd just threten to make public what he knew about the editor. That would normally do the trick

My issue is with the likes of the Guardian case. That was exposing some genuine criminal behavior by a multi-national, yet they were gagged by the courts.

Great ranting BTW. Spelling is outstanding. Needs random CAPS though 😉

Will I to jail for reading it? 😯

copy and paste it in here* - I cant read it behind this firewall.

* dont worry, they'll only send mark to jail.

I know who the footballer is, he's saving his privates 😆

it's a legal [i]Quagmire[/i] out there really 😉

Apparently, there's another one in the press at the moment about a celebrity who isn't soft but is 'ard.

The only two I had to keep quiet about were the moon landings one and the Kennedy assasination one. I'm surprised they didn't include the one about the Pope's son's civil partnership with Dale Winton though.

Since this is a cycling forum, here are some pics of cyclists.

See, bikes in background!
[img] ?1295097269[/img]

[img] [/img]

Gabby Logan, she does Tri so should be a better pic really
[img] [/img]
not linked in any way except "relief" to
[img] [/img]

Oops, wrong forum, allegedly.

I didnt know ryan giggs and ewan mcgregor both "rode" together. I think we should be told.

some tags got me here. LOL!

Just in case there is anyone that hasn’t heard …. prostitute Helen Wood, the one who famously had a threesome with Manchester United football star Wayne Rooney, is now claiming that she slept with a famous British actor. However, the actor concerned has successfully applied to the courts for a super injunction, to prevent the press from revealing his true identity. The actor’s name was replaced in court by the initials NEJ, which is probably meaningless, but other clues to his identity are that he is married, has a child, uses Twitter regularly, is Scottish, has appeared in a Star Wars movie, paid £195 for a shag and kisses like a virgin.

To be honest, I don’t blame the bloke for trying to hide his identity. I mean, who the hell in their right mind would want everyone to know that they had emerged from the same tunnel or swung from the same bush as that monkey boy, Wayne Rooney.

When's the new series of Top Gear on?

If I'd got jiggy with Ms Logan, I'd want EVERYONE to know about it. 😀

Anyway, crashes, I think your second picture is wrong. Check out mandrake in telegraph yesterday:

Hugh Bonneville's simple pleasures

Few, if any, users of the Twitter social networking website make a better advertisement for married life than Hugh Bonneville, the Downton Abbey star.
The 47-year-old actor has lately regaled his 16,600 followers with his happy experiences at Chessington World of Adventures with his wife, Lulu, and nine-year-old son, Felix. It is the simple pleasures for Hugh: he talks, too, of his joy at "jogging through a bluebell wood... glorious."

His tip for wholesome television viewing for Easter Monday? Just William on CBBC. "It's superb family viewing," he decrees. The star not merely of Downton, but also of films such as [u]Scenes of a Sexual Nature[/u] and [u]Conspiracy of Silence[/u], Bonneville has undoubtedly come a long way since he started out at the National and the RSC in productions of [u]The School for Scandal[/u] and [u]'Tis Pity She's a Whore.[/u]

Mandrake got that one spot on!

On another note, Louise Bagshawe on HIGNFY this week - Tasty for an MP, no?

she is rather nice.

I wonder what the rhyme was she used?

I think she was talking about collecting twigs in a field full of pigs while being watched by Ronnie Biggs who was smoking one of his favourite cigs before tucking in to a bowl full of figs.

It was lampard, wasnt it?

Stoner - Member
It was lampard, wasnt it?

Don't be daft. It was Djamolidine Abdoujaparov.

I stand corrected then, must have been thrown by the "hollywood star" rumours rather than the "dull jobbing actor" ones, presumably why he's still paying for it!