Superinjunctions & the 'internet'

9 May 2011

Are the rich and powerful increasingly using injunctions and so-called super-injunctions to gag the press from publishing stories about their private lives?
No one really knows, especially in the case of 'super-injunctions', where the media is prevented from revealing even the fact that an injunction has been granted.
In 2000 the Labour government passed the Human Rights Act, which wrote into UK law the European Convention on Human Rights. It established two very powerful, but contradictory rights.
The right to private and family life under Article 8 - the right to privacy.
And the right to Freedom of Expression under Article 10- the right that allows the press to publish.
So that seems to be where a super injunction is issue in the UK, no one can even report that person A has such an injunction, never mind what this injunction is the subject of.
Therefore it would be quite possible for us to quite innocently make a comment about person A without knowing that person A had such legal protection and that we could be found 'in contempt' with all the possible consequences that that might bring.
However this appears to be the UK Law 'position', so presumably this Law doesn't apply outside the UK's 'legal borders'.
Therefore we appear to be in the same situation as the UK Government were with Peter Wright & Paul Greengrass with their book "Spycatcher: The Candid Autobiography of a Senior Intelligence Officer" in 1985. The Government immediately acted to ban Spycatcher in the UK. Since the ruling was obtained in an English court, however, the book continued to be available legally in Scotland, as well as overseas. It also attempted halting the book's Australian publication, but lost that action in 1987; it appealed but again lost in June 1988.
English newspapers attempting proper reportage of Spycatcher's principal allegations were served gag orders; on persisting, they were tried for contempt of court, although the charges were eventually dropped. Throughout all this, the book continued to be sold in Scotland; moreover, Scottish newspapers were not subject to any English gag order, and continued to report on the affair.
:small-print:
So whilst we are not allowed to know who have super-injunctions at the moment, it appears that they can be reported outside the UK - even if the actual content behind them isn't reported. (Personally couldn't care is z list celeb A has slept with z list celeb B)
It begs the questions as to
a) why we are being kept in the dark about who has superinjunctions
b) why once again UK Law still seems so far behind the world today, i.e. the internet never mind 'social media' things like Twitter, Facebook, etc.
dunno

9 May 2011

"In 2000 the Labour government passed the Human Rights Act, which wrote into UK law the European Convention on Human Rights. It established two very powerful, but contradictory rights.
The right to private and family life under Article 8 - the right to privacy.
And the right to Freedom of Expression under Article 10 - the right that allows the press to publish"
Obviously the judiciary believe that Article 8 has precedence.
As for question B, is the UK actually behind the rest of the world? Do similar laws exist elsewhere or are the foreign press more responsible in what they print? dunno

9 May 2011

I believe the privacy laws here in France are more severe than elsewhere and the French press seem to respect them (on pain of no invites ever in the future to the Elysée Palace shindigs).
Seems to work here :grin:
The UK Superinjunction issue is a totally different issue and an interpretation (like so many others) of what Europe really intended. I doubt it would stand up to scrutiny in the the European Court of Human Rights but the Liberal Bench are being somewhat mischievous in pushing their Lordships' interpretation to the limits.

9 May 2011

Sadly, a lot of newspapers think that 'in the public interest' is the same as 'the public are interested in it'.
The first covers top bosses breaching H&S to increase profits, the sacking of a whistleblower just prior to the collapse of a major high street bank, your MP overclaiming his expenses while preaching self-restraint to his constituents - stuff that matters.
The second covers X celeb shagged Y celeb, or X minor royal goes into a clinic to deal with being a drunk.
The two types of interst of totally not the same thing. The second is, frankly, none of our business any more than our sex/personal lives are any of their business.
If it takes a super-injunction to give a person who happens to have been on the telly the same anonymity during a personal crisis that we would all hope to enjoy, then so be it - I'm ok with that. It's the application of SI's to the first set of circumstances that would worry me.

10 May 2011

Foxy,
I concur.
Be interesting to see how the Max Mosley / European Court (Strasbourg) ruling goes later today, i.e. his bid via the Court to force newspapers to notify people before exposing their private lives.

10 May 2011

Max Moseley lost his appeal.
Jon Gaunt said on Sky Sunrise last week "If you want to keep it out of the papers, keep it in your trousers"
I think there is some wise wisdom in those words.
What is it with the British and their prurient interest in other people's sex lives? Is it because they have none of their own dunno

If a French Politician isn't shagging someone else's wife (or husband, irrespective of gender) - that's news!!

10 May 2011

Quote by GnV
Jon Gaunt said on Sky Sunrise last week "If you want to keep it out of the papers, keep it in your trousers"
I think there is some wise wisdom in those words.

not the same jon gaunt who was sacked from talk sport and also sun talk by any chance? the same jon gaunt who is laughed at by so many? i would not take anything he says seriosly.

11 May 2011

Quote by Andy_Jules
Speaking of which Gaunt has his day in the High Court today, May 11th...all stemming from his original sacking in 2008 from Talksport. Gaunt purveys himself as a defender of free speech and yet when members of the public who could hold their own when confronting him on his radio show dared to put him on the spot he would summarily dismiss them from the airwaves by cutting them off.
If he wins his case today the whole world and his dog will get to hear about it but I can't see Moz Dee giving him his job back at Talksport

Ah, that explains why Michael Portillo is in the reviewer's chair today.
I've never seen Jon Gaunt in any other role but on Sky Sunrise as occasional Newspaper Reviewer so I'm unable to comment on your postulations about his capacity for good broadcasting (or otherwise).
I can't for one minute say that he is my favourite broadcaster, neither did I do so but the words I attributed to him about keeping it in your trousers if you want to keep it out of the papers does make sense. You can't condemn the man for that.

11 May 2011

Quote by GnV
Max Moseley lost his appeal.
Jon Gaunt said on Sky Sunrise last week "If you want to keep it out of the papers, keep it in your trousers"
I think there is some wise wisdom in those words.

That means that everyone on this Site is fair game to have their lives plastered all over national newspapers? That can't be right can it?

11 May 2011

Quote by Too Hot
Max Moseley lost his appeal.
Jon Gaunt said on Sky Sunrise last week "If you want to keep it out of the papers, keep it in your trousers"
I think there is some wise wisdom in those words.

That means that everyone on this Site is fair game to have their lives plastered all over national newspapers? That can't be right can it?
I doubt that my life in print would sell many newspapers wink

11 May 2011

Quote by GnV
Max Moseley lost his appeal.
Jon Gaunt said on Sky Sunrise last week "If you want to keep it out of the papers, keep it in your trousers"
I think there is some wise wisdom in those words.

That means that everyone on this Site is fair game to have their lives plastered all over national newspapers? That can't be right can it?
I doubt that my life in print would sell many newspapers wink

But some of ours on here would, especially in local papers. You only have to apply the correct family, job, position etc and it becomes good gossip for a local rag. For example
Local Charity fund raiser attends private sex parties
Ramifications for the site user their family etc. Not a big fan of freedom of the press at all mainly as its 90% not used for anything useful other than gossip.

11 May 2011

Quote by GnV
Speaking of which Gaunt has his day in the High Court today, May 11th...all stemming from his original sacking in 2008 from Talksport. Gaunt purveys himself as a defender of free speech and yet when members of the public who could hold their own when confronting him on his radio show dared to put him on the spot he would summarily dismiss them from the airwaves by cutting them off.
If he wins his case today the whole world and his dog will get to hear about it but I can't see Moz Dee giving him his job back at Talksport

Ah, that explains why Michael Portillo is in the reviewer's chair today.
I've never seen Jon Gaunt in any other role but on Sky Sunrise as occasional Newspaper Reviewer so I'm unable to comment on your postulations about his capacity for good broadcasting (or otherwise).
I can't for one minute say that he is my favourite broadcaster, neither did I do so but the words I attributed to him about keeping it in your trousers if you want to keep it out of the papers does make sense. You can't condemn the man for that.
I've knew Jon Gaunt since before his days as a failed nightclub owner and bankruptee, to then little known broadcaster on local raido (BBC Radio WM) and then Talksport, (I dont follow The Sun or his witterings on Sunrise) the best way to describe him is as a 'hypocrite' He once described Shami Chakrabati (Current Director of 'Liberty") as 'the most dangerous woman in the Britain' and yet he now allows Liberty to drop anchor alongside him in his current legal battle regarding his rights as a broadcaster. Visit his website and on the top right of the page is his latest rant re the Royal Wedding, it's 2mins long and altogether laughable.

11 May 2011

But it's always been like that, nothing has or will change.

Quote by Too Hot
Max Moseley lost his appeal.
Jon Gaunt said on Sky Sunrise last week "If you want to keep it out of the papers, keep it in your trousers"
I think there is some wise wisdom in those words.

That means that everyone on this Site is fair game to have their lives plastered all over national newspapers? That can't be right can it?

11 May 2011

Quote by tweeky
But some of ours on here would, especially in local papers. You only have to apply the correct family, job, position etc and it becomes good gossip for a local rag. For example
Local Charity fund raiser attends private sex parties
Ramifications for the site user their family etc. Not a big fan of freedom of the press at all mainly as its 90% not used for anything useful other than gossip.

and wrapping sausages :grin:

11 May 2011

Spaghetti super injunction - What a road smile

21 May 2011

ahh the power of the internet
Manchester utd`s current longest serving player and welsh international has his name posted all over twitter
so it seems a super injunction isn`t worth a carrot
just a simple case of useing money and the law to save his own arse smackbottom

22 May 2011

Taking out any injunction to prevent your name being mentioned in the media (paper and electronic) is a bit pointless when you have already been identified in a number of European newspapers. A bit like trying to patent a brick.
I feel that many superinjunctions about 'celebs' are doomed to failure and are likely to generate even more publicity, for longer, than just 'fessing up and taking the flack.
As I said before, other people's sex lives are nothing to do with us, but making such a fuss about keeping it 'quiet' is a bit counterproductive. Taking major legal steps really does give an affair far more importance than it really has.
I'm curious - how the hell do you enforce a superinjunction when you can't tell anyone there is one? Imagine the scene - I walk up to a newspaper seller and ask "anything about Giggsy and that Imgogen?" and he says "You may ask, but I couldn't possibly comment!".
And does it mean me and mine dicussing Ryan Giggs and this Imogen woman in our home, or down the pub, will get us arrested? How does this work then?

22 May 2011

maybe if he would have kept his dick in his trousers and concentrated on his marrige then this would never have happened. once again think about his wife and not his mistress or his super injunction through inedpt judges.
i think these things are worthless now as the internet cannot be controlled by dodgy judges hear in the uk and now these same judges are thretening mp's if they say the name in parliment. it is outragious.
so much for me saying to peeple at work only a month ago before this injunction came to light that giggs is probably the best player in the premiership for what he has one and not bringing his sport into any disreput. what a laugh that is now.

22 May 2011

I guess i don't know enough about the law. But i sometimes wonder if a person is doing a good job in the public eye, and helping the people with what matters to them.....then is there any need for us, the public to know about there privite life........i know i wouldn't like everyone reading about me and what i do behind closed doors.....thats my business.....However the spending of public money on duck houses and that, well it is good the public are aware of that..........i guess its all about balance. Where i come from we lost a good public worker because he was having an affair.......and the press put it in the papers........but how did that help us.......he had to leave the town, and now we have no one??

22 May 2011

Quote by upbeat
I guess i don't know enough about the law.

Leave the law aside, just look at what you believe to be right.

Quote by upbeat
But i sometimes wonder if a person is doing a good job in the public eye, and helping the people with what matters to them.....then is there any need for us, the public to know about there privite life........

If you are in the public eye doing a good job for other people, then it is likely that you are there either by their consent, knowledge or approval. You are representing them, or another person or persons who have put you there - to do a specific job, or to discharge a role... that probably does not include being unfaithful or engaging in less than appropriate behaviour.

Quote by upbeat
i know i wouldn't like everyone reading about me and what i do behind closed doors.....thats my business.....

Agreed - but are you in the public eye, do you represent anyone or anything - have you set yourself up for a fall?

Quote by upbeat
Where i come from we lost a good public worker because he was having an affair.......and the press put it in the papers........but how did that help us.......he had to leave the town, and now we have no one??

I suppose it is all dependant on personal perspective... would you rather have a public worker who was doing a good job, but was fundamentally dishonest - or would you rather have no-one.
I don't beleive there are any right answers, but I know what I would choose.

22 May 2011

Quote by flower411
maybe if he would have kept his dick in his trousers and concentrated on his marrige then this would never have happened. once again think about his wife and not his mistress or his super injunction through inedpt judges.
i think these things are worthless now as the internet cannot be controlled by dodgy judges hear in the uk and now these same judges are thretening mp's if they say the name in parliment. it is outragious.
so much for me saying to peeple at work only a month ago before this injunction came to light that giggs is probably the best player in the premiership for what he has one and not bringing his sport into any disreput. what a laugh that is now.

That`s a rather judgemental attutude to have on a swingers site, surely !!!
i take it that is an opinion as it is not a question? otherwise it would have a ? with can all have opinions.
i like your predictability though one of your trates?

23 May 2011

I have no idea who this footballer is, can anyone who knows privately message me and give me a idea who he is please. Thanks

23 May 2011

Quote by flower411
maybe if he would have kept his dick in his trousers and concentrated on his marrige then this would never have happened. once again think about his wife and not his mistress or his super injunction through inedpt judges.
i think these things are worthless now as the internet cannot be controlled by dodgy judges hear in the uk and now these same judges are thretening mp's if they say the name in parliment. it is outragious.
so much for me saying to peeple at work only a month ago before this injunction came to light that giggs is probably the best player in the premiership for what he has one and not bringing his sport into any disreput. what a laugh that is now.

That`s a rather judgemental attutude to have on a swingers site, surely !!!
rotflmao

Touche, methinks :thumbup:

23 May 2011

Quote by ziks
I have no idea who this footballer is, can anyone who knows privately message me and give me a idea who he is please. Thanks

Here are a couple of clues, from this very thread:

Quote by Lizaleanrob
ahh the power of the internet
Manchester utd`s current longest serving player and welsh international has his name posted all over twitter
so it seems a super injunction isn`t worth a carrot
just a simple case of useing money and the law to save his own arse

Quote by foxylady2209
I'm curious - how the hell do you enforce a superinjunction when you can't tell anyone there is one? Imagine the scene - I walk up to a newspaper seller and ask "anything about Giggsy and that Imgogen?" and he says "You may ask, but I couldn't possibly comment!".
And does it mean me and mine dicussing Ryan Giggs and this Imogen woman in our home, or down the pub, will get us arrested? How does this work then?

23 May 2011

It's quite funny the girl saying her reputation has been ruined.
Reputation?, as a slapper who shags married famous men :twisted:

23 May 2011

Quote by Freckledbird
Touche, methinks :thumbup:

i am a bit confused.
if you want a clue check the word predictability. i made a coment based on the fact that i knew certain peeple would pick up on it and i was right. does that make sense to you?:notes:

Quote by browning
It's quite funny the girl saying her reputation has been ruined.
Reputation?, as a slapper who shags married famous men

i think it makes her look silly but not a slapper. is she the marriad one here? i think giggs is a idiot and is the marriad one whose sponsers like tiger woods, paid him money based on his cleen cut image which is now ruined beyond repare.
should have kept his dick in his trousers lol

23 May 2011

I am unable to understand what all the fuss is about.
When young Wayne did the same thing earlier in the season, S.A.F. gave him a months paid holiday and doubled his wages.
Surely the least he can do now is pay Giggs £500,000 a week and only play when he feels like.
wink

:wink: :wink: :wink: :wink:

23 May 2011

Quote by foxylady2209
And does it mean me and mine dicussing Ryan Giggs and this Imogen woman in our home, or down the pub, will get us arrested? How does this work then?

This was the MP`s point when he argued that putting 75,000 social net-workers in prison was just not feasible, or even the 20,000 Blackpool fans that were canting about his injunction at Saturdays football match

:rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao:

23 May 2011

Quote by ziks
I have no idea who this footballer is, can anyone who knows privately message me and give me a idea who he is please. Thanks

Watch tonight's news.. he was named in Parliament and now the world and his wife knows, but can't tell you for fear of being treated like a dissenter of a third world republican junta!
Personally, I've never heard of the pratt dunno

Has he got a big dick then? She's certainly shaggable.
As they say, it's the rich wot gets the pleasure.....

23 May 2011

Quote by flower411
i am a bit confused.
does that make sense to you?:notes:

Yep :thumbup:

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: