Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

interestrateripoff

Twitter User In Bid To Break Super-Injunctions

Recommended Posts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13330409

A Twitter user has tried to unmask some celebrities who have obtained super-injunctions to prevent publication of details of their private lives.

The Twitter user claimed to "out" a number of public figures, though the tweets appeared to contain errors.

Jemima Khan tweeted: "Rumour that I have a super injunction preventing publication of "intimate" photos of me and Jeremy Clarkson. NOT TRUE!"

The tweets will add to concerns over injunctions and non-mainstream media.

Not sure why they are just mentioning Twitter as the source, the names are all over the net. It was also mentioned on the BBC the problem is the court can't find "20,000" people in contempt of court. Can you imagine the amount of police time needed to find out who these people are? Not really a great use of police time to find a gossip who's outed some bloke for not keeping his pecker in his trousers. Not going to be a big vote winner with the public.

All what these injunctions have created is a rumour frenzy Gabby Logan has had to issue repeated denials she's having an affair with Alan Shearer, so these super injections are creating an even bigger problem.

Although as these orders are shrouded in secrecy and you talk of those having an injection how could you be in contempt of court? Surely you can only be in contempt of court if you know that the person has obtained the injunction and know X had an affair with Y? As this is all secret if you are in contempt of court that means all gossip has been banned by the courts because you might unwittingly break an order and not know it?

Plus if any of the wives of these people decided to file for divorce are they too unable to name their other half in any court papers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1384883/Exposed-Twitter-Top-secret-super-injunction-names-revealed-internet.html

Privacy law written on the hoof has had consequences unforeseen by judges, who developed it on the back of human rights legislation designed to protect an individual’s private life.

No judge has given any indication that they realised giving a gagging order to cover up the sexual misbehaviour of one celebrity could damage the reputations of the innocent.

At the weekend, TV presenter Gabby Logan issued a fresh denial over false rumours that she has had an affair with BBC colleague Alan Shearer. She was again trying to damp down internet speculation sparked by a privacy injunction granted by a judge to a different TV star.

The mother of two said the gossip was ‘unfair’ and declared of the allegation that she is having an affair: ‘I am not and never have.’

To be honest it's impossible to have a privacy law. If you don't want to get caught don't have an affair. If you do have an affair you know the risks.

Although one possible downside is that everyone will have to issue denials, however what happens if the people who have the injunctions issue a denial, can that be reported?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The obvious problem with these secret super injunctions is that you need to know they exist, which you cannot because of the injunction. So you find a juicy piece of gossip and publish it, you have broken the law. A law which you are not allowed to know exists. There is a problem with the justice of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The obvious problem with these secret super injunctions is that you need to know they exist, which you cannot because of the injunction. So you find a juicy piece of gossip and publish it, you have broken the law. A law which you are not allowed to know exists. There is a problem with the justice of this.

My thoughts exactly, I have a feeling if anyone had the guts to challenge this and name them on live TV the whole farce would collapse. Obviously they'd have to be prepared for a bit of jail whilst they appealed about the moronic law, but then again in jailing them the justice system would confirm who these people are breaking the injunction again. So in effect those with the super injunctions would never actually be able to act on the them because in doing so they would confirm they like sex with donkeys.... Which of course they are hoping to keep quiet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is part of the fight back.

Consistently name X having an affair with X who has a super injunction, tarnish the reputations of the innocent whose denials will now fall on deaf ears, and get this injunction nonsense stopped...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoever started the thing about someone shagging Jeremy clarkson is evil. Who wants to think about JC having sex with anyone?

;-/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thoughts exactly, I have a feeling if anyone had the guts to challenge this and name them on live TV the whole farce would collapse. Obviously they'd have to be prepared for a bit of jail whilst they appealed about the moronic law, but then again in jailing them the justice system would confirm who these people are breaking the injunction again. So in effect those with the super injunctions would never actually be able to act on the them because in doing so they would confirm they like sex with donkeys.... Which of course they are hoping to keep quiet.

I wonder how it would stand up in Court ? Who would be the onous on to provide proof ? If the person simply said 'I didn't know this information was part of any injuctions - so therefore I cannot be held responsible for saying it'

And then sat down. End of defence. How exactly could anyone prove they did know about it ? If there is no evidence how exactly could a judge/jury find them guilty ?

I think you are right - one of these needs to be outed publicly - then taken to court - then made a mess off. Then game over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how it would stand up in Court ? Who would be the onous on to provide proof ? If the person simply said 'I didn't know this information was part of any injuctions - so therefore I cannot be held responsible for saying it'

And then sat down. End of defence. How exactly could anyone prove they did know about it ? If there is no evidence how exactly could a judge/jury find them guilty ?

I think you are right - one of these needs to be outed publicly - then taken to court - then made a mess off. Then game over.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/may/09/superinjunctions-medialaw

True, the individual who tweeted the names of celebrities who have supposedly obtained privacy injunctions could face contempt of court proceedings if he can be identified - and if he knew that the information he published was restricted by court orders.

So, in theory, could those who draw attention to the site - which is why I have not retweeted from it or linked to it from this piece. As far as I can see, the mainstream media outlets have also exercised caution today.

If, however, the information becomes so widely available that it can be said to have entered the public domain, the courts can be expected to lift the injunctions at the request of a media organisation or another interested party.

Why, then, are the judges likely to treat the Twitter revelations with no more than a wry smile?

Firstly, because the courts do not make orders unless asked to do so. I would be surprised if anyone named over the weekend has rushed over to the courts to ask for an order against Twitter, requiring it to take down the offending tweets. As I write, they are still there. It is far too late to put this particular genie back into the bottle marked "privacy".

Secondly, because the judges know that most court orders are, in fact, respected. The belief that you can find everything out on the internet is a myth.

Thirdly, because the judges do not seek to achieve the impossible. If a privacy injunction is to work, the person who takes it out will have to notify media organisations that might otherwise publish the information it covers. If journalists have information that they are not allowed to publish, they may well decide to leak it. That's a problem for the person who took out the injunction and for the person who breaks it - but not for the courts.

Merely opinion but it would appear that the court would have to prove that you the individual knew that the information you are sharing was subject to an injunction. Didn't all the papers together publish information about Spycatcher, I seem to remember a publish and be damned attitude at the time. Will we see the names all published by the end of the week. The clock appears to be ticking about how long these injunctions will last.

If you'd taken one out would you be preparing to jump ship and confess all before the press push for it's already in the public domain?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You wonder how WHAT would stand up in court? :P

Ooh er missus !!

http://www.guardian....ctions-medialaw

Merely opinion but it would appear that the court would have to prove that you the individual knew that the information you are sharing was subject to an injunction. Didn't all the papers together publish information about Spycatcher, I seem to remember a publish and be damned attitude at the time. Will we see the names all published by the end of the week. The clock appears to be ticking about how long these injunctions will last.

If you'd taken one out would you be preparing to jump ship and confess all before the press push for it's already in the public domain?

Indeed. It is such a load of nonsense.

And yes I imagine some are speaknig to certain PR experts right now in order to jump ship ASAP. In the best possible way of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ooh er missus !!

Indeed. It is such a load of nonsense.

And yes I imagine some are speaknig to certain PR experts right now in order to jump ship ASAP. In the best possible way of course.

Is Max Clifford the only PR "guru" in the UK?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Max Clifford the only PR "guru" in the UK?

I thought I'd read he was representing Imogen Thomas and Mr X, as well as most of the others who've brought injunctions.

When he retires how will our celebrities manage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I'd read he was representing Imogen Thomas and Mr X, as well as most of the others who've brought injunctions.

When he retires how will our celebrities manage?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-5LjbFVNlE

(1 of 4)

At the end, Clifford stitches himself up, and makes himself look a fool... I think he's a very slippery customer...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoever started the thing about someone shagging Jeremy clarkson is evil. Who wants to think about JC having sex with anyone?

;-/

LOL +1 to that

Though there was a story going round a while back about him and his publicist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears the Spanish media give super-injunctions short shrift:

http://www.koptalk.c...footballer.html

Quote from the woman who received an email from Giggs' person's lawyers "One thing it said was if I ever, ever spoke I would be sent to jail."

What price truth?

Koptalk - hmmm, stones and glass houses springs to mind..............

Hasn't HPC just broken the injunction? :huh:

Edit: As pointed out on CH4 news just now a privacy clause in a court ruling isn't a Super Injunction which cannot be revealed at all. Only the named person can't be revealed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL +1 to that

Though there was a story going round a while back about him and his publicist.

When that toad Piers Morgan was editor of The Mirror, he printed some allegations that Clarkson was knobbing one of his producers (I think)...when Clarkson next met him, he gave him a good thumbing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'He tries to portray he's a fantastic family man. I don't think a family man sleeps with escorts': Super-injunction farce as Rooney prostitute talks about married actor she slept with

Also reveals one man has THREE injunctions against three different women

Meanwhile Twitter user who leaked names doubles followers to 40,000 in the space of a couple of hours

The farce surrounding super-injunctions deepened even further today when it took a former prostitute - who claims to have slept with Wayne Rooney in a threesome - to declare it was simply a law to protect the rich.

Problems were made worse later in the day when someone set up a page on Facebook that named the people involved in superinjunctions.

The farce grows stronger, clearly the media is now at war with the courts.

I wonder if those who sort these injunctions for themselves and didn't protect the women they'd slept with will end up getting sued for damages?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The farce grows stronger, clearly the media is now at war with the courts.

Every newspaper - national and local - should splash the names of the injunctees on the front pages of tomorrow editions.

They could argue that the names are in the public domain anyway.

Surely they couldn't have every paper in court, and once it's out it's out. A court case would be a farce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would the UK courts be able to do anything against a site based in the US?

Probably not. A worldwide ban is unworkable. It would require the coopoeration of governments. Does the United States Congress really give a stuff about protecting some Welsh footballer's reputation? Other countries have no obligation to follow our laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if these super injunctions have to be renewed to be kept valid. In which case I expect a lot to be thrown out by the High Court because they've already been revealed.

The papers will have a field day and that poor Imogen Thomas can finally cash in on her latest conquest. Kerching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pleased this was dumped into off-topic. I'm assuming it wasn't posted here first?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 312 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.