UK Super Injunctions

Discussion in 'Freedom of Expression' started by Anonymous, May 8, 2011.

  1. Anonymous Member

    Several super injunctions are currently in place in the UK, banning the press from publishing details of various events involving high profile individuals.

    Here are the details of some:

    1. Manchester United footballer Ryan Giggs had an extramarital affair with Big Brother star Imogen Thomas which lasted for 7 months. Giggs is believed to have now confessed all to his wife but the injunction still remains in place.

    2. British comedian/actor David Schneider is said to have a keen interest in BDSM and has made several visits to spanking establishments to engage in the spanking/whipping of women. His wife is not believed to know.

    3. TV chef Gordon Ramsay is said to have sexually harassed a female employee and then sacked her. He also sacked a male former chief executive of his company for no reason. The man is alleging age discrimination and is still owed wages by Ramsay.

    4. British actor Hugh Bonneville (Downton Abbey, Doctor Who) paid £195 for the services of prostitute Helen Wood. Helen Wood is the high profile prostitute who received much tabloid coverage last year over her involvement in a sex session with footballer Wayne Rooney. Wood is said to have used a sex toy on Bonneville.

    5. Top Gear presenter and married man Jeremy Clarkson has an injunction preventing the publication or reporting on the existence of intimate photographs of himself and Jemima Khan.

    6. Two stars of the British TV show Shameless, David Threlfall (Frank Gallagher) and Pauline McLynn (Libby Croker) had an affair. Both are married. McLynn is said to have left the show as a result.
  2. Thank you. That's just what we needed: more boring shit.
  3. Anonymous Member

    I think the spectacle of UK judges granting censorship to protect the smutty lives of the rich and famous is relevant to freedom of speech interests.
    • Like Like x 2
  4. Really? I find it more hilarious that UK judges mistakenly believe censorship is even possible in the age of the Internet. The question I would ask is this: Is it newsworthy? If I were an editor, superinjunction faggotry or no, I would deem none of these stories newsworthy. At this point, who doesn't know celebretards are at least as fucked up and flawed as the rest of us? Superinjunctions about important things vital to the public interest? Yeah, that shit has to go except in extraordinarily rare circumstances. Superinjunctions about celebretards getting spanked and playing "hide the salami" with people other than their spouses? My only regret is judges felt the need to issue it in the first place.

    Edit: And Gordon Ramsay is an abusive employer and all-around asshole? Who didn't know that after watching even a few minutes of Hell's Kitchen?
  5. Anonymous Member

    Very simple
    1) click this link
    2) tell everyone you know and tell them to tell eveyone they know etc.

    Why should it be that these people think hey are so important to block information, i am not particualy interested in these so called "celebritys" but it sure would be lulz to see them spend millions of pounds for nothing.

    We are Anonymous. We are Legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us.

    nice idea


    "lulz" :D

    reminds me of habbo

    check this out
    • Like Like x 2
  6. slobeck Member

    I dunno, greta. I actually think this type of thing is very similar to the original attempt at censoring the TC video but this time with the government actually in on it. Which IMO makes it way worse. But that's just my opinion after 3 minutes of reading about it -so not worth much.
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Anonymous Member

    OP: please delete the crap about Jemima! It's fucking crap! TRUFAX!
  8. slobeck Member

    Plus, what if the press in the USA got hamstringed like that. They'd go apeshit.
    • Like Like x 2
  9. Loki's spawn Member

    I find it ridiculous that the gov't would make such laws. Not like I'd read the stories anyways, but still...
    • Like Like x 3
  10. WhiteNight Member

    The clarkson jamina khan one is bullshit from what I've heard
    • Like Like x 1
  11. OP is there any independently verifiable sources that say these things exist?
  12. google reveals one blog that they had dinner together, and another that says that they had dinner together with Guy Richie. Nothing nefarious that I can tell from 30 seconds looking.
  13. Anonymous Member

    ewan mcgregor
  14. WhiteNight Member

    Likewise. Twitter and foreign site etc are usually buzzing with info but I'm getting nothing on that.
    I thought Ewan McGregor was meant to be one of them. I was under the very strong impression that they are.

    Also; 3 cheers for USA based WWP servers.
    • Like Like x 4
  15. Anonymous Member

    OK! I'll try one last time!

    This IS utter BULLSHIT and extremely hurtful to Jemima's sons!

    Post whatever the fuck you want but for the record IT'S CRAP!

    • Like Like x 1
  16. Forgive me for trying to find something other than your and OP's word to go on.
    • Like Like x 3
  17. Anonymous Member

    I don't recall my posts being addressed to a Mod!

    Dude, I've no idea what the time limit is on deleting a post!
  18. Only mods can delete or edit an Anonymous post.

    Seriously you're taking this too personally. I was just trying to verify the claim.

    I was saying that even if they had dinner together it isn't a crime, and I don't know anything about "superinjunctions".
    • Like Like x 2
  19. In that case, these superinjunctions probably have something to do with the UK's libel laws, which puts a completely different slant on things. In that sense, the superinjunctions may be seen as a way of protecting innocent people, as well as tabloid assholes who would get assraped with a rusty chain saw in court if they were to publish this crap.

    Edit: Gordon Ramsay is still an asshole, though.
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Anonymous Member

    Fucking LOL!
  21. WhiteNight Member

    What Rufus said.

    @Rufus and co.:
    They fall under Libel law I believe.
    Injunctions are court orders issued by a judge as part of someone's punishment, which makes person have to do, or refrain from doing, something. Eg. A paedophile not being allowed within a certain distance of any school. They protect the populace or an individual from another individual (or sometimes a group). They are public and neither party can simply have them removed. They can only be lifted by the authorities and nearly never are.

    Super injunctions are exactly the same except they are arranged in secret court hearings, closed to the public. The result of the hearing, the court file, the names of all those involved and even the terms of the injunction order are secret. Only those present (the parties, counsel, the judge and the court staff) know about it and all are forbidden from talking about it. It's fine to speculate, but in doing so you risk accidentally getting it right, and then getting fined and/or put in jail for breaking the injunction.

    They are effectively a kind of gagging order. They work in the opposite way to normal injunctions; they protect an individual from the populace or another individual. The current superinjunctions *not* being talked about ban any form of media outlet which falls within UK legal jurisdiction from reporting on a issue. This includes bloggers and websites. eg. the 2006 Côte d'Ivoire toxic waste dump which the Dutch shipping company Trafigura dumped toxic waste at the Ivorian port of Abidjan. The BBC and all uk media were banned from reporting on it. We didn't know about it until Wikileaks told us in late 2009.

    Only the person who took the super injunction out can lift it. The only way around this is to get your MP to mention it in parliament, which is protected by special UK laws which basically amount to "anything goes" in terms of free-speech inside parliament. They're immune while inside those 4 walls. Once it's discussed publically, it becomes newsworthy and thus the injunction is effectively broken.
    There are no laws which really govern super injunctions, and nearly no president to go on (it all being secret), so judges pretty much make it up as they go along. Leading to these useless celebrities setting president with their shitty adultery stories for future cases where the public will NEED to know something but will be unable to find out about it.

    Tl;dr they're bad shit that's made up as we go along.

    • Like Like x 2
  22. Anonymous Member

    The ones I heard were:
    Ewan Mcgregor and Helen Wood
    Gabby Logan and Alan Shearer

    These were via a guy I know at BBC news
  23. WhiteNight Member

    Oh, and then there's the "Hyper injunction" (I shit you not) which means not even your MP can bring it up. No one, no one at all can even specualte about it. If you even think of it your own memory erases itself leaving only a fading sense of Tony Blair laughing.
    • Like Like x 3
  24. Herro Member

    I would point out that while the information being censored is trite drivel, the legal framework which enables such sweeping injunctions does pose troubling questions for the protection of speech. I am admittedly ignorant of the particulars of Brittish law however. So it is entirely possible that there are different standards for information about public institutions such as governmental agencies or politicians. For instance, in the United States, there are very different standards for slandering or libeling private citizens and public officials. The law is far more lenient when it comes to making claims about public officials compared to private citizens.
    • Like Like x 2
  25. Anonymous Member

    England: The place where there used to be a free country
    • Like Like x 2
  26. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 1
  27. Anonymous Member

    Come one, make one short sexy video and it may be more popular than Tom Cruise.
  28. Anonymous Member

    Very good discussion.
    Frankly the UK has no constitution and no privacy laws to protect individuals from corporations, the government or the stupendously rich that can't simply disappear as soon as enough money is thrown at the laws. A very unstable legal situation.
    • Like Like x 1
  29. IMO its quite stable, the legal world thrives on cold hard cash, the rich guys have it and the lawyers want it, as long as there are rich people or companies for that matter, the legal system will lean that way. No profit in poor people so fuck em!
  30. Anonymous Member

    Trufax but there are exceptions like Lord Denning
  31. Unfortunately as rare as an honest lawyer.
  32. Anonymous Member

    - he said to the bloke with a high court judge as a relative.
    If you're good at something never do it for free. You wouldn't.
  33. I quite agree, but can you really, honestly justify their hourly rates (I have some insight into the sort of money involved)

    If I had my way footballers and lawyers would swap their income with nurses and soldiers
  34. Anonymous Member

    yeah! 3 cheers for state-sponsored murders! Damn those footballers, who we all agree to go watch at football statiums for ridiculously over-priced tickets and those lawyers who fight for rape victims, defend our civil liberties by working for Liberty and Amniesty international and the children who suffer at the hands of child abuse! Damn them!
    Vote with your wallet. If we don't pay what they ask, they have to lower their prices or starve. It's called supply and demand, the world revolves around it.
  35. Anonymous Member

  36. I don't support football, it's a game, but now it's not. Unfortunately lawyers have a monopoly, it's not supply and demand, many lawyers have never got their hands dirty with real law such as rape etc, as for civil liberties look at the Blairs in the UK, Prime ministers wife pushes for human rights bill, Pm gets it through parliament, pm's wife has a legal company all set up and ready to milk the human rights cash cow! Funny that.
  37. WhiteNight Member

    Ah fuck it. All the above legal Anon posts are me.

    Ah. I see you speak from hours of experience, sitting in court rooms, watching, listening and taking notes. You seem to ahve this twisted perception of the world. You're not some lone crusader and the world isn't out to crush you and all your hold dear. People make their way in the world any way they can. If you're intelligent you might go into law. If you choose to become a barrister (a steriotypical courtroom lawyer) then you fight the cases the company you work for tell you to. You will start as a trainee and you don't get to pick. So no, you're wrong. Most barristers have tackled those kinds of cases. Do you know anything about Pro bono publico work? No. You've probably just googled it. It translates as "for the good of the public" and it's when lawyers work for free. When have you ever (assuming you have a job) worked for the public good? Helped people, not just served them a Big Mac?

    Yes, Blair shat on civil liberties in the UK, but how does this relate to the legal profession? That's politics.
    Proof that Sheri Blair did this? And how did it reap benefits for her? The Human rights bill in question was tiny, and it merely allowed for slightly greater tax-deductable charity donations. That's money OUT of the governments pocket INTO the hands of charities. How is that a bad thing? And where do the Blairs come into it?

    You are frankly a moron without any sense of reality.

    /self-righteous rant.

    • Like Like x 1
  38. Anonymous Member

    I thought it was a cool story, bro.
  39. Met, worked and know lawyers and barristers, one especially who cocked up my case and I had to appeal and fight it myself to win it, he pocketed £1,500, and lost the case, I did it for free and won. I know a lawyer who has offices in the Temple area, he freely admits to getting serious criminals a not guilty verdict, by any means. The Blairs? Look at how her business has grown since the human rights bill. Vested interest? Human rights bill is a cash cow, the UK has changed since lawyers realised just what things are like in the US, lawyers are actively chasing the pound note, it's affecting everything, driving up the cost of insurance etc, the threat of legal action concerns evreryone now because no matter what happens there's always a bloody lawyer trying to make a buck out of it, you trip over your own feet in the street, don't worry lawyers can get you a cheque, mass murderer in prison, don't worry, lawyers will fight a pointless case to make an absolute fortune trying to get you free, even though you murdered 8 people! Pro bono my ass! Yes I will admit that like society there are a few that are good and fight for the right reasons, many many others don't. I also know of a group of lawyers acting mainly for illegal immigrants in the uk who daily had mini busses with clients carrying suitcases delivered by their own drivers to their offices. Very wealthy company now, in 5 years their personal homes have gone from very nice houses in wealthy areas to extremely large estates in exclusive areas.

    Funny how I have a different view from you then I must be a golden arches employee or even unemployed,

    Who is the moron bereft of reality??????
  40. Loki's spawn Member

    You do understand that's their job, right? How can you possibly have a fair trial if your own lawyer doesn't do their best to get you free? You know the prosecution is going to be trying just as hard. Lawyers can't just choose to slack off and let somebody lose, just because they think they're guilty.
    • Like Like x 2

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins