Injunctions, parliamentary privilege and reporting

[danroyle]

Are hexus now gonna have to write something into the rude word filter so a certain welsh footballer who plays for man u can't be typed in to a thread.

With all the scandal around man utd rooney's granny fetish and so on next seasons team sheet will say the following

1,REDACTED
2,REDACTED
3,REDACTED
4,REDACTED
5,REDACTED
6,REDACTED
7,REDACTED
8,REDACTED
9,REDACTED
10,REDACTED
11,REDACTED

[G4Z]

Who, Bryan Briggs?

[MadduckUK]

Lion Pigs

[scaryjim]

I don't suppose any of you have heard of John Hemming (the MP who outed said footballer) before then? Try a bit of google fu, you might be amused

[santa claus]

Ronnie Biggs

[mycarsavw]

I don't suppose any of you have heard of John Hemming (the MP who outed said footballer) before then? Try a bit of google fu, you might be amused

Affairs, stolen cats, expenses, par for the course no?

[scaryjim]

I think he's had a little more intrigue than most MPs, tbh. I was just amused because his "mistress" is an old friend of mine.

Then again, he's never shied away from the press coverage - so does that give him more room to talk, or less? *shrug*

[G4Z]

Heh, and what does your old friend say about him these days then?

[Hicks12]

Im still a bit baffled by these super injunctions... if i understand correctly then it only affects the media? They arent allowed to speak about the specific names etc of the injunction or whether there is one.

Now how does that affect me? I read this "During debate in the Commons on 23 May 2011, Mr Hemming said it would not be practical to imprison the 75,000 Twitter users who had named the player."

So i presume im missing something, how can an injunction that isnt stated as actually being made so i dont know if its part of it be legally enforceable to the public? Surely if you arent present in any signing etc means its unenforceable...?

[peterb]

The injunction prevents the subject being named in conection with something. The superinjunction bit prevents the existence of the injunction being reported. (Ie the fact that xxxx has an injunction for an unspecified reason can't in itself be reported/published or commented on.

[roachcoach]

So i presume im missing something, how can an injunction that isnt stated as actually being made so i dont know if its part of it be legally enforceable to the public? Surely if you arent present in any signing etc means its unenforceable...?

Ignorance is no defense.

Law is a wicked thing



Best you could hope for is Jury nullification if it got that far.

[Hicks12]

well its not ignorance if your not allowed to know

[roachcoach]

But the charge is contempt of court and people do, mainly, know about that one

[Hicks12]

it is a silly thing though :L.
You cant really enforce free speech especially if you cant say what your enforcing, at the end of the day if the footballers and other celebs stop having sex with anything then they wouldnt have to do this lol.

[roachcoach]

Oh its not just that mate, these things have been used to suppress reports of toxic dumps causing cancer and various other nasties.

<Famous nobody> biffing <shameless strumpet> I don't care about, gagging the media to this degree on matters of actual public concern (rather than 'interest') is I'm pretty unhappy with.


There's also the knock on of the levels of paranoia around them and the difficulties that poses for...well, anyone public really.

I could post I'd heard a rumour down the pub that X was porking Y and, unbeknownst to me or the site that data is subject to a super injunction and as such a comment like that could bring hell down on the site it was 'innocently' posted it on.

Its practically thought crime, you don't know what you can debate on a public forum for fear of fines/jail/personal liability.


I never thought I'd say this , but the MP was right in his interview: if censorship/media fear of this level was happening in another country we would call it outrageous and cry to the UN about it.

[danroyle]

Who, Bryan Briggs?

Lion Pigs

Ronnie Biggs

No Giant Figs