how is this still being allowed awesome
Because nobody has said Ry... [BANG][b]Post moderated by SEAL Team 6.[/b][/BANG]
Ah, so Mark's tied up with something then. P'raps that's the same reason that other chap's not been on twitter.
David Schneider - WhoTF ?
If he's done something that's worth a superinjunction I reckon he's down at the "animal" end of my scale 😯
Schneider's a comedy actor type. You'd recognise him if you saw him, been in loads of stuff. I think he looks a bit like a younger Max Mosely.
muppetWrangler - Member
ust read Telegraph on-line, about 'high class escort' Helen Woods who slept with the actor who has also taken out a super injunction, therfore he cannot be named.
On the same page was ads by google, & one of the ads was for Triumph Motorbikes.........
Wonder what Jedi would have to say on this subject?
eh? what?
Jedi, I think it means you like motorbikes. Or hookers. Not too sure.
Jedi:
Nothing personal, it was a vague (as we're supposed to be vague on the subject of super injunctions) star wars / jedi knight reference hinting towards an actor that may have had connections with Jedi's.
Genuinely curious about how these superinjunctions work - if I was to write on my facebook status that footballer x has been sleeping with 'big brother hottie' would I be sued or go to jail?
Oh & how come caught offside are allowed to mention names in their comments but we aren't on here?
oh 🙂
i have no idea.
the question i would ask is how do you know you are not allowed to say anything, i suspect that no one here has been served with an injunction. So if i happen to mention that i had heard that R G* was caught sha***** some woman how would i know that it was subject to the injunction, no one would have told ME i am not allowed to say anything.
[i]So if i happen to mention that i had heard that R G* was caught sha***** some woman how would i know that it was subject to the injunction, no one would have told ME i am not allowed to say anything.[/i]
It doesn't matter whether you know or not, you're not the publisher.
Ronan O'Gara?
Crikey.
[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/organgrinder/2011/may/09/injunctions-twitter-law ]Is stw actually a publisher?[/url]
There's a great piece in the latest Private Eye about all this nonsense.
And they point out that when Andrew Marr came clean about his injunction, it actually put him in contempt of court. What a nob. And he only gave the interview when he found out the child of his ex-mistress wasn't actually his after a DNA test. What a fine character.
And he only gave the interview when he found out the child of his ex-mistress wasn't actually his after a DNA test. What a fine character.
The rumours flying around about who the real father is are most amusing.
The telegraph article was amusing but I cant help that think the press are just getting upset because someone has suggested they think sometimes before publishing
I assume most of us have done things that we would prefer not to be headline news in the national press. I assume most people who have affairs and it becomes an issue don’t sit down with their kids and go into sordid details for example. Some of these stories will affect innocent parties and I assume most of the damage is done as I assume his wife knows by now etc. I am not sure that what they want to publish ..someone famous shags someone else less famous or perhaps a paid escort is not particularly the kind of freedom of speech issue I feel like defending. With rights comes responsibility and they need to exercise some IMHO.
Ah well the press bleating on about how oppressed they are means few of us will notice them destroying innocent life’s and being taken to court
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13371918 ]bristol murder contempt of court charges brought by Attorney General over the innocent landlord[/url]
