Originally posted by Vermilion
View Post
I wonder if that was meant, or just a lucky placement.-
The papers do it all the time. I wonder if that was meant, or just a lucky placement.Oh I don't know. -
It definitely was intentional..
Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
May the Lord bless this post.Comment
-
Although all of this is very amusing there is absolutely no way that any of it is 'in the public interest' and therefore we can demand it as our right to information. FFS freedom of speech is a serious matter that plenty of people around the world don't have and it wasn't so long ago that we didn't have it in this country. You'd really ****ingknow about it if was removed.
And we waste the concept on arguing about whether we should be allowed to know which ****wit shagged which ****wit?
Bollocks. None of this is in the public interest, unless you subscribe to the view that what the public is interested in is ****e so meaningless that they deserve to have freedom of speech denied them.Really?Comment
-
So what's the deal with these then? If you pay £50,000 you can get a 'super injunction?' If that's the case, I don't agree with it in principle. Money shouldn't come into it.
Are they only temporary? As with John Terry?K ris90210Comment
-
Eh, that can't be right, it's about the judge deciding the protection of someone indirectly involved (ie: children of guilty party), out weighs the publics right to know or the papers right to publish.Originally posted by kris90210 View Post
It can't just be a case of pay 50 grand get the injunction ? That would just be bribery, imo.
Although, it's obvious that if you have lots of cash, you'll have lots of good lawyers, and that obviously helps.Last edited by Vermilion; 29-04-11, 09:51 AM.Comment
-
I agree. The issue is whether these precedents will be used to protect information where disclosure would be in the public interest.Originally posted by Tatterdemalion View Post
There are also concerns about power. The rich and powerful can use these legal instruments to protect their ability to make money based on a public image that bears little relation to the truth.
And, worse, there is also the issue of a public figure using their power and wealth to to impinge on the human rights of others who they may well have harmed. Going back some years, the case of Cecil Parkinson's illegitimate child - he was granted a Mary Bell order, which was designed to protect a child, which had a directly negative impact on the child he fathered and neglected. If super-injunctions had existed at the time we would never have known even that small piece of damning information about that revolting man's vanity and pride.
But I agree, a lot of the cases involved here have no direct public interest defence..
Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
May the Lord bless this post.Comment
-
Currently on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Injunction
Which apparently isn't in breach of the order because wikipedia is based in the USThe only gracious way to accept an insult is to ignore it; if you can't ignore it, top it; if you can't top it, laugh at it; if you can't laugh at it, it's probably deserved.Comment
-
Trafigura is a perfect example of why superinjunctions must be challenged. Their behaviour was an affront to civilized society and the fact it couldn't be reported, even though it was true, was totally undemocratic..
Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
May the Lord bless this post.Comment
-
I see such as thing as a Hyper-Injunctions exists as well!Originally posted by Exiled_red View Post
What next? Hyper-Mega Injunctions, Super-Duper Injunctions..?Modifying post.Comment
-
The level of injunction beyond hyperinjunctions exists but isn't even allowed a name.
And the level beyond that isn't even allowed to exist. Officially
.
Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
May the Lord bless this post.Comment
-
I getcha ;-)Originally posted by Neil Young View PostThe level of injunction beyond hyperinjunctions exists but isn't even allowed a name.
And the level beyond that isn't even allowed to exist. Officially
Modifying post.Comment
-
I getchaOriginally posted by Neil Young View PostThe level of injunction beyond hyperinjunctions exists but isn't even allowed a name.
And the level beyond that isn't even allowed to exist. Officially
Modifying post.Comment
-
That's a pity because no one must know so now I have to shoot you.Originally posted by Buzzo View PostI getcha ;-).
Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
May the Lord bless this post.Comment
-
That's a pity because no one must know so now I have to shoot you again.Originally posted by Buzzo View PostI getcha.
Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
May the Lord bless this post.Comment
-
seems Louise Bagshawe said it on Have I got news for you
Comment
Comment