Super Injunctions
Comments
-
If you don't want the press reporting on your sexual habits the don't do it - not misbehave and then try to hush it up - the law needs to catch up with the technology0
-
Jay dubbleU wrote:If you don't want the press reporting on your sexual habits the don't do it - not misbehave and then try to hush it up - the law needs to catch up with the technology
But why is it misbehaving?
If someone in a 'high up' position in a big company is in a loving, secure relationship that happens to be 'open' and involves a high degree of delicious S&M kinkiness, shouldn't he/she be allowed to do what they want. It's not hurting anyone*, it doesn't affect their performance at work. They shouldn't be bullied into living a dull life based on the moral hypocrisy of the press.
*well....you know what I mean0 -
bails87 wrote:tri-sexual
But would someone like that get a superinjunction in that kind of case? Knowledge like that would definitely be 'in the public interest', whereas knowing which slapper is shagging which millionaire is not. I suppose we don't know and there might be hundreds of them stopping us from being told things like 'George Osborne likes to pay tramps to give him a reverse dutch steamboat before he kills and eats them'.
But somehow I doubt it.
Oh yeah, and super injunctions allow to start rumours about anyone, because it'll never be proved either way!
But what right does a judge have to decide what is, and what is not in the public interest? It is an entirely subjective decision and puts far too much power in the hands of a single judge. IMHO. Fred Goodwin also has a superinjunction relating to an affair he had with a senior colleague - is that in the public interest?0 -
Sewinman wrote:Fred Goodwin also has a superinjunction relating to an affair he had with a senior colleague - is that in the public interest?
Not in my opinion, no. But then I don't know enough about running a bank to know if it caused the collapse of RBS.
If he promoted someone to Queen Of The Bank becuase they were bonking, then yeah, that's wrong, and if it then has to be propped up by public money as a result of her bad decisions (due to her innappropriate appointment) then you can argue it becomes a 'public interest' issue.
A free press would be great. But 'the press' are generally money-grabbing c*nts with an agenda. If they existed to tell us the news things would be a lot easier.0 -
Tri-sexual
You wouldn't get a Super Injunction preventing the press from reporting a rich person has been tried and found guilty of being a war criminal, rapist, murderer, paedophile etc because it's in the public's interest to know.
The issue with Giggs is that his is a personal relationship despite how morally wrong and should be afforded a measure of privacy. At the same time, he is a professional footballer who does portray the image of a family man more so than say er Ashley Cole and is n the public eye and so public interest demands to know. Whether we have a right to know is a question for greater minds than me.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
bails87 wrote:Sewinman wrote:Fred Goodwin also has a superinjunction relating to an affair he had with a senior colleague - is that in the public interest?
Not in my opinion, no. But then I don't know enough about running a bank to know if it caused the collapse of RBS.
If he promoted someone to Queen Of The Bank becuase they were bonking, then yeah, that's wrong, and if it then has to be propped up by public money as a result of her bad decisions (due to her innappropriate appointment) then you can argue it becomes a 'public interest' issue.
A free press would be great. But 'the press' are generally money-grabbing c*nts with an agenda. If they existed to tell us the news things would be a lot easier.
So you can not decide if it is in the public interest because you don't know the facts.
Surely that is a good argument then that it is indeed in the public interest - we need to know the details to decide if any wrong doing has taken place. Presumably a CEO of a bank has to sign various codes of conduct on inappropriate behaviour - sh@gging a colleague and not informing HR may well fall foul of such a code. Such actions could be seen as gross misconduct.
Under the current injunction we do not know, and therefore can not make an informed opinion.0 -
Sewinman wrote:So you can not decide if it is in the public interest because you don't know the facts.
Surely that is a good argument then that it is indeed in the public interest - we need to know the details to decide if any wrong doing has taken place. Presumably a CEO of a bank has to sign various codes of conduct on inappropriate behaviour - sh@gging a colleague and not informing HR may well fall foul of such a code. Such actions could be seen as gross misconduct.
Under the current injunction we do not know, and therefore can not make an informed opinion.
There's a substantial body of law as to what the public interest means. It is not the same as "of interest to the public".
Taking a ream of paper home once a month for mixed professional and personal use at home might fall foul of RBS's internal disciplinary procedures. But if so I would think most people would agree that that is an internal matter for RBS; that it has not public interest element; and that it contributed not one jot to RBS's downfall or to a decision made by SFG that may have contributed to RBS's downfall.
Now whether SFG was having an affair is no doubt of interest to the public and will shift newspapers. But unless there is even the beginnings of a suggestion of a causal link between that affair (or any aspect of it) and RBS's downfall, for my part I see no public interest in trawling over it.
FWIW, I think it is important that there is a *very* heavy filter being applied by the media at the moment in relation to every aspect of reporting of superinjunctions. They hate them, and it shows rather clearly in their reporting.0 -
Greg - I thought the issue with Goodwin was that his affair may have actually represented a conflict of interest within RBS, and as such, the super-injuction was not in the public interest - which was why it was raised in the House of Lords.0
-
Greg66 wrote:Sewinman wrote:So you can not decide if it is in the public interest because you don't know the facts.
Surely that is a good argument then that it is indeed in the public interest - we need to know the details to decide if any wrong doing has taken place. Presumably a CEO of a bank has to sign various codes of conduct on inappropriate behaviour - sh@gging a colleague and not informing HR may well fall foul of such a code. Such actions could be seen as gross misconduct.
Under the current injunction we do not know, and therefore can not make an informed opinion.
There's a substantial body of law as to what the public interest means. It is not the same as "of interest to the public".
Taking a ream of paper home once a month for mixed professional and personal use at home might fall foul of RBS's internal disciplinary procedures. But if so I would think most people would agree that that is an internal matter for RBS; that it has not public interest element; and that it contributed not one jot to RBS's downfall or to a decision made by SFG that may have contributed to RBS's downfall.
Now whether SFG was having an affair is no doubt of interest to the public and will shift newspapers. But unless there is even the beginnings of a suggestion of a causal link between that affair (or any aspect of it) and RBS's downfall, for my part I see no public interest in trawling over it.
FWIW, I think it is important that there is a *very* heavy filter being applied by the media at the moment in relation to every aspect of reporting of superinjunctions. They hate them, and it shows rather clearly in their reporting.
How can we investigate causal links if we are not allowed to to know the facts? Why is it acceptable that one judge can decide whether the entire nation should be allowed to know about something or not? And why is the women's freedom of speech of less importance than a philanderer’s right to privacy?
Thankfully these ridiculous rulings are being entirely blown apart by civil disobedience. It warms my heart that the public are making a mockery them.0 -
bails87 wrote:Jay dubbleU wrote:If you don't want the press reporting on your sexual habits the don't do it - not misbehave and then try to hush it up - the law needs to catch up with the technology
But why is it misbehaving?
If someone in a 'high up' position in a big company is in a loving, secure relationship that happens to be 'open' and involves a high degree of delicious S&M kinkiness, shouldn't he/she be allowed to do what they want. It's not hurting anyone*, it doesn't affect their performance at work. They shouldn't be bullied into living a dull life based on the moral hypocrisy of the press.
*well....you know what I mean
I do not have a problem if someone wants to involve a "high degree of delicious S&M kinkiness". In the main, everyone has a right to privacy (in my view)
I do have a problem where super injunctions are used to allow someone to get away with adultery or similar whilst maintaining their public branding of being an upstanding citizen (based on current social accepted behaviour)or to protect their children.
This leads into a different discussion though. Either we as a society say monogamous marriage is irrelevant and adultery is perfectly acceptable (so why marry ?). Or we say that marriage between two people is just that; two people, in which case, the guilty party must accept the consequences and not be allowed to be seen as a role model.
Further, to get a super injunction (as in one recent case) because public gossip would give cause for one’s children to be bullied is a disgrace. If one is worried about the impact on the children, think of them first and don’t go against society’s perception of what is proper behaviour.0 -
Sewinman wrote:Greg66 wrote:Sewinman wrote:So you can not decide if it is in the public interest because you don't know the facts.
Surely that is a good argument then that it is indeed in the public interest - we need to know the details to decide if any wrong doing has taken place. Presumably a CEO of a bank has to sign various codes of conduct on inappropriate behaviour - sh@gging a colleague and not informing HR may well fall foul of such a code. Such actions could be seen as gross misconduct.
Under the current injunction we do not know, and therefore can not make an informed opinion.
There's a substantial body of law as to what the public interest means. It is not the same as "of interest to the public".
Taking a ream of paper home once a month for mixed professional and personal use at home might fall foul of RBS's internal disciplinary procedures. But if so I would think most people would agree that that is an internal matter for RBS; that it has not public interest element; and that it contributed not one jot to RBS's downfall or to a decision made by SFG that may have contributed to RBS's downfall.
Now whether SFG was having an affair is no doubt of interest to the public and will shift newspapers. But unless there is even the beginnings of a suggestion of a causal link between that affair (or any aspect of it) and RBS's downfall, for my part I see no public interest in trawling over it.
FWIW, I think it is important that there is a *very* heavy filter being applied by the media at the moment in relation to every aspect of reporting of superinjunctions. They hate them, and it shows rather clearly in their reporting.
How can we investigate causal links if we are not allowed to to know the facts? Why is it acceptable that one judge can decide whether the entire nation should be allowed to know about something or not? And why is the women's freedom of speech of less importance than a philanderer’s right to privacy?
Thankfully these ridiculous rulings are being entirely blown apart by civil disobedience. It warms my heart that the public are making a mockery them.
I wouldn't trust the majority of the nation to correctly determine whether something is in the public interest any more than I'd trust News of the World. Most of the time salacious gossip is nothing more than that.
My preference would be to allow NotW to publish what they want of affairs, then back it up in court with a reasoned argument as to why it was in the public interest, with significant penalties for printing tat for the sake of it. Injunctions have a place, but protecting adulterers isn't it. Similarly, the fact someone is famous isn't enough excuse to destroy their private lives when they balls up (or should that be balls deep?).
Punish the kids for the parent's mistakes?MarcBC wrote:Further, to get a super injunction (as in one recent case) because public gossip would give cause for one’s children to be bullied is a disgrace. If one is worried about the impact on the children, think of them first and don’t go against society’s perception of what is proper behaviour.0 -
Sewinman says "How can we investigate causal links if we are not allowed to to know the facts? Why is it acceptable that one judge can decide whether the entire nation should be allowed to know about something or not? And why is the women's freedom of speech of less importance than a philanderer’s right to privacy? "
Catch 22 really old chap - if you get the public to decide if it's in the public interest to know then the public know.......As previously mentioned there is a substantial body of law that defines public interest - it's the judges job to interpret the rule book and rule.
Personally I don't really give a curly one regarding the bedroom shenannigans of the slebs, but I think the moot point here is that we've proved you can't keep a lid on it ergo it doesn't seem fair that the legitimate press be denied the right to report on it - at least they have some pressure to remain factual (as they are easy to sue for printing lies as compared to you or I posting speculation on e-media).FCN 5 belt driven fixie for city bits
CAADX 105 beastie for bumpy bits
Litespeed L3 for Strava bits
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast.0 -
p.s. This is not just about celebs/bankers either. The Guardian was once prevented from reporting that an MP had asked a question in Parliament about Trafigura and the dumping of toxic waste off the Ivory Coast. The media prevented from reporting what was discusssed in Parliament by our elected reps....0
-
SimonAH wrote:it doesn't seem fair that the legitimate press be denied the right to report on it - at least they have some pressure to remain factual (as they are easy to sue for printing lies as compared to you or I posting speculation on e-media).
Not that the 'legitimate' (and I use that word very reluctantly) press are easy to get corrections out of. Especially when some choose not to be in the PCC.
http://nosleeptilbrooklands.blogspot.co ... guest.html
It's probably relatively easy for a footballer on £x0,000 per week, but you could easily be seen as 'important' and so be fair game for the papers, without having the financial muscle to fight back.0 -
The bit I am uncomfortable with is that Ryan Giggs sid of this can't be discussed openly however Imogen Thomas is all over the papers as an adulterer.
She is then unable to defend herself which I feel is deeply wrong. At the end of the day, she is single, the main of the moral burden sits with the married one (I know it is unlikely however, we don't even know if she knew he was married).
I don't give a damn about the Celeb aspect of this but I do love the public unrest over something they believe to be wrong. I think it is a good thing and will result in Giggs coming out looking far worse than if he had never taken out an injunction.
**Please note, the above post it totally fictional. Any similarities to persons either alive or dead is totally coincidental**0 -
dhope wrote:
Then it will quietly die a death as a news story. I basically don't think judges should decide that we should not be allowed to know something. Lets have a free and open media...if they report it and get it wrong they can be sued.0 -
dhope wrote:as would be the case most of the time.
If only this were true and lots of people didn't care more about reading of other peoples lives than living their own...
But the general avid readers of hello, heat etc would demonstrate that this is sadly so, and by more I really do mean a majority of people in the UK...Le Cannon [98 Cannondale M400] [FCN: 8]
The Mad Monkey [2013 Hoy 003] [FCN: 4]0 -
MonkeyMonster wrote:dhope wrote:as would be the case most of the time.
If only this were true and lots of people didn't care more about reading of other peoples lives than living their own...
But the general avid readers of hello, heat etc would demonstrate that this is sadly so, and by more I really do mean a majority of people in the UK...
Exactly, it's not in the public interest if Josie is hoping to get back together with John-James (I apologise for knowing their names, but Heat magazine is always next to the checkout...I can't help but read the front cover), but a worrying proportion of the public are interested.0 -
bails87 wrote:MonkeyMonster wrote:dhope wrote:as would be the case most of the time.
If only this were true and lots of people didn't care more about reading of other peoples lives than living their own...
But the general avid readers of hello, heat etc would demonstrate that this is sadly so, and by more I really do mean a majority of people in the UK...
Exactly, it's not in the public interest if Josie is hoping to get back together with John-James (I apologise for knowing their names, but Heat magazine is always next to the checkout...I can't help but read the front cover), but a worrying proportion of the public are interested.
Hence my earlier comment saying I'd not trust the public to decide what was in their interest any more than I would the tabloids. In the public interest is not the same as interesting.
Given the choice a full list of every affair and misdemeanor might be quite fun to have lying about, then I could pick and choose what to gossip on and who to be nasty about. This would of course be a lousy idea and the vast majority of what goes on is none of my business. Just because Giggs is famous doesn't mean I have a right to know who he's shagging.
That said, I don't think he should be able to take out a superinjunction to prevent it being made public - I think it should be regulated by hefty penalties for tabloids that exist solely to spread useless smut.0 -
MarcBC wrote:[
Further, to get a super injunction (as in one recent case) because public gossip would give cause for one’s children to be bullied is a disgrace. If one is worried about the impact on the children, think of them first and don’t go against society’s perception of what is proper behaviour.
indeedy indeedy, the idea of responsibility had been missing from most of the discussions I've read on the matter.The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns
momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.0 -
If Giggs had originally allowed a press free for all (instead of being an asshole by leaving the poor girl out to the wolves) there would be a bunch of us cheering him on for landing a top bit of totty in Imogen Thomas....
Needs to be said, how many of us would like to lay pipe and 'crunch on down' in her!
(Not at the expense of our WaGs though - wives and girlfriends Gregg66/T - unless you have that kind of relationship... go on own up!)Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Good grief DDD, you're a romantic soul aren't you.FCN 5 belt driven fixie for city bits
CAADX 105 beastie for bumpy bits
Litespeed L3 for Strava bits
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast.0 -
-
Good grief DDD, you're a romantic soul aren't you.
I am actually, but I'm also a realist.
It was allegedly a 7 month affair. Maybe she loved him, maybe he was having a difficult time at home or a mid life crisis. Whatever, two things remain.
Man Utd fans have (Saint) Imogen's bedroom skills to thank for Giggs' apparent golden revival!
Imogen Thomas is proper corking and there would have been some of us chanting "Get in lad!" Had he not been a lil'b*itch and got a S.injunction.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
The BBC news website is reporting that the High Court has upheld the existing ban on journos naming the footballer.
ATM this is nothing more than the ticker tape at the top of the page. Will be interesting to see the basis of the decision...
Cue: tomorrow's press "The law is an ass", "Sack the Judges", "Free speech for newspapers NOW" "Ridiculous", etc, etc...
I wonder if any of the editors will actually have the cojones to publish tomorrow and be damned. After all, if they believe it to be so clearly in the public interest, surely they should.0 -
0
-
I don't know if anyone else has seen any of that 'See you in Court' series. There was an interesting comment by one of the lawyers along the lines that if you see something inaccurately reported and ask to speak to the editor of whatever newspaper about it, some will be reasonable about it and if they genuinely got it wrong will print a correction or apology - what you might call responsible journalism, while others, particularly the Daily Mail will just tell you to get stuffed and fight it to the bitter end.
I do love it when journos act as though they are the only thing standing between this country and oblivion.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:
Imogen Thomas is proper corking and there would have been some of us chanting "Get in lad!" Had he not been a lil'b*itch and got a S.injunction.
Isn't she in the media because she outed herself (e.g was trying make money)?
As was pointed out by a pundit today the tabloids are in trouble due to changes in technology (e.g they print less and less news as it is free elsewhere) and it is the gossip that makes them the millions. Privacy laws kill the golden goose as they know that few cases are really in the public interest (e.g politican preaching one thing & doing another, or corruption coming about because of an affair)0
