Sunday, May 15, 2011

See our list of 80 injunctions

Many of you have been working on compiling the ultimate injunction spreadsheet. Following the Daily Star's helpful additions, the spreadsheet has 80 injunctions out that gag the media from reporting on things that may or may not be in the public interest.

In a democracy it is the people who decide what they want to read. When government backed Judges filter out what we can see, hear and say, we have censorship. So to combat this the spreadsheet contains a list of injunctions that may or may not exist with links to sources, and then we can all decide if they are newsworthy or in the public interest or not.

If you want to help stop the UK turning into China, then do please help with the spreadsheet.

Click here to view and or edit the spreadsheet.


  1. Can't find the one about the footballer being blackmailed about sleeping with 2 women in Las Vegas.

    @UrbanInsider said it was Theo Walcott MONTHS before the papers were even aloud to talk about it.

  2. Someone should collate the Daily Star entries with those already there. There's no where near 80 with all the duplicates.

  3. umm u really should take out that stephen nolan description, the person who wrote it was obviously just taking the piss

  4. I saw the Daily Express printed on their online website that Jose Mourinho had 2 injunctions with the High Court. An hour or so later the page was removed and it said "page no longer available" when you tried to click on it. It was when he had just left the UK in September / October 2007. Therefore I am 100% positive he is an injunctor too or why would the Daily Express have printed that? Maybe as injunctions were relatively new in 2007. I can't have been the only person who saw them print that.

  5. To be fair, I don't see many of the items listed as being in the public interest. Many of these devices have only become necessary as a result of an over-invasive press.

    * Big company dumping toxic waste? Serious business.
    * Claims of discrimination in the workplace that are later upheld? That's newsworthy.
    * Council wrongly accuse parent of child abuse? Shout it from the rooftops!

    But ...
    * Adoptive parents protecting the identities of the biological parents? That's a matter of whether the child wants to know, and should be confidential in any case.
    * Man turned on by BDSM? What goes on between consenting adults is their own business and none of ours.
    * Woman may be bisexual? What is this, 1948?
    * 'A man of “some public reputation” who slept with a hooker “two or three times” a decade ago.' Come on - really? Somebody genuinely feels they have an absolute right to know this?
    * 'Celeb family over personal matter.' Again, why does anyone think that this is anyone's business but their own?

  6. Hi

    I so agree with Anonymous May 17, 12-32 pm - why would anyone be interested in what Hugh Wotsisname shoves anywhere - AND why SHOULD we know any details about Lenny and Dawns' adoptive child. The danger of the press concentrating on this crap is that they miss Trafigura and what about DSK - don't tell me this is the first time he has misbehaved - how come we don't know about the head of the IMF having so little respect for women??

  7. We don't know all that much about the extent of M. Strauss-Kahn's personal misdeeds because the French have strict privacy laws about that sort of thing. His conduct since moving to DC to head up the IMF, however, became known very quickly, the Americans having strong protection for a free press and no concept of privacy.

    Prior to this event, he was one of if not the leading candidate for the PS nomination for the Presidential election next year, and polling suggests that had he gained it he'd have thumped Sarkozy pretty convincingly, possibly without the need for a run-off. Some have suggested that since this will ruin him even if he's acquitted on all charges it may be a politically-motivated frame-up.

  8. It doesn't seem unreasonable that the state should offer privacy in some limited matters like medical records and matters protecting children, but many of the matters in the document fall way outside of this.

    I can't understand why in so many cases cited, if reports are to believed, no public interest defence is entered, when I would say it is easy to make such a case on several grounds.

    For example it is in the public interest to monitor the justice system so justice is "seen to be done" and without this an important constraint on both the judiciary and legislature is broken.

    Secondly many case involve the character of plaintiffs. They use these characters commercially to sell product, whether it is their own records or TV programmes or products they lend their character to by endorsement. When we discover that they are liars or cheats we are entitled to weigh that evidence in our normal day to day decisions, and no longer lend any weight to their recommendations, and we may choose to shun such products or conversely perhaps decide that such character flaws are attractive and it may go the other way. Either way, it is our decision and reputations should not be gold plated by the judges.

    Other cases where the state has granted honours to or big businesses have paid for services of individuals open them to closer scrutiny than the general public in so far as discovering character faults affects those decisions.

    Overall, if any of the document is to be believed, I am shocked that so much can be hidden from the public and I am inclined to agree that it seriously damages my belief in any public figure's pronouncement. My first question to any such person would be, "Can you first confirm that you do not have any superinjunctions in your favour, so we may understand your true character". I'd like to see this asked by journalists as a matter of course. They should also confirm that they themselves do not have one either! (Of course they could lie, but when that comes out they are finished).