Injunctions

[AndyHB]

Since I am not sure of the legal position on this, I won't name anyone, but with at least 2 names having come 'available' recently - both through being named in the Commons, not to mention Twitter, I thought a discussion on the nature and validity of injunctions was in order.  One 'name' seems to have tried hard to give us a picture of themselves as 'squeaky clean'; the other is known for their involvement in the financial world and the collapse of the bansk a couple of years ago.

Are either/both/neither of these cases of public interest, and what exactly - your view - counts as 'public interest'?

[JJ]

meaty discussion ahead, but I have to get dressed and go to work now.

[Jan]

To be honest its old news now  as its been all over the place. Can't even watch Stargate Universe without a big white banner appearing across the screen (at least 3 times during the program), urging people to check out the news site for the story. Why do they assume everyone is interested?

Obviously in the day and age of internet, twitter & FB, getting an injunction doesn't really serve any purpose 

[administrator]

Why did last nights main news story on the evening news have to be about a Liverpool player and a super injunction he'd taken out to stop the press talking about his affair.
why is this of such importance that it has to take up 5min+ of the news ahead of a story about the Icelandic volcano that will possibly effect the lives of people travelling in and out of the UK 
 

[ecuworrier]

missed the liverpool player's revelations.. though did wonder who Henning lib dem MP ? supports.... though apparently only non twitter readers would not know that Ryan Giggs was the secret not so secret culprit....

as far as RG is concerned yes indeed he has been given thyis squeeky clean model image ... i think the place that it would most be of public interest is that he is mr ambassador of some children's charity.... so cavorting with miss **** reality tv celeb might call that into question...

it is an interesting as well as thoroughly boring issue... for me the main question is not about whether the tabloids get carried away on whatever they think will sell papers! though it would be thoroughly decent to ban gossip from the media ...oops there goes the entire sports coverage (BRILL!!!)

but what really serves the public interest it all seems a bit arbitrary really...

like ok so if we found out RBS director was having a relationship with a colleague before RBS got shown up for their mess what can we do about it? surely that is an internal matter?  now RBS is public property i guess we can all be as confused about the fuss as shocked.... nobody has directly suggested that the whole RBS crisis has directly been cos of that alleged affair .. though there seems to be some question about judgement yeah but there seems to have been an endemic  culture of bad judgement and me is not convinced things is better... i mean if the press was doin it's job properly then surely we would have better judgemetn on these matters cos we would have a better understanding of why we should care!

GOD BLESS!

Peace and Love,

[ecuworrier]

Since I am not sure of the legal position on this, I won't name anyone, but with at least 2 names having come 'available' recently - both through being named in the Commons, not to mention Twitter, I thought a discussion on the nature and validity of injunctions was in order.  One 'name' seems to have tried hard to give us a picture of themselves as 'squeaky clean'; the other is known for their involvement in the financial world and the collapse of the bansk a couple of years ago.

Are either/both/neither of these cases of public interest, and what exactly - your view - counts as 'public interest'?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2011/may/26/ryan-giggs-affair-big-brother

nice of you to have picked up the giggs story (not giggs specifically but could have been a spurs player or anything

GOD BLESS!

Peace and Love,

[Boudi]

Why did last nights main news story on the evening news have to be about a Liverpool player and a super injunction he'd taken out to stop the press talking about his affair.
why is this of such importance that it has to take up 5min+ of the news ahead of a story about the Icelandic volcano that will possibly effect the lives of people travelling in and out of the UK 

he obviously thought it was that important....and that's in part why the press follows.

[AndyHB]

Why did last nights main news story on the evening news have to be about a Liverpool player and a super injunction he'd taken out to stop the press talking about his affair.

And which Liverpool player would this be, Mike?  Haven't heard anything about a Liverpool connection to this story on any channel.

[administrator]

Why did last nights main news story on the evening news have to be about a Liverpool player and a super injunction he'd taken out to stop the press talking about his affair.

And which Liverpool player would this be, Mike?  Haven't heard anything about a Liverpool connection to this story on any channel.

Just demonstrates the power of the super injunction then.

[AndrewF]

ISTM that there is far more of a case of things being of interest to the public* than of them being in the public interest...
(*I might even go further and say that actually most of the public couldn't give a toss, but the papers think they do...)