Monday, May 30, 2011

Twitter: Sue Mae outs some injunctions

A new Twitterer has tweeted who the parties are to a number of existing injunctions. Unlike others who have just named names, this person has cited media sources and links to the original injunction.


Twitter is like a virus; you just cannot put it down. Surely this is the end of celebrity injunctions? This is what Forbes thinks:

Now this maybe a coincidence, but is the person behind the recent hyper injunction where no mention of life support machine or hospital or persons was allowed to be mentioned Dame Barbara Mills?:

We put in this Barbara Mills speculation to demonstrate the side effects of gagging orders. People like to guess and tell and the innocent get hurt.


  1. sunday times said she was in a coma for 12 days in hampstead.

  2. Many of these superinjunctions are of no interest to me, never heard of a lot of the parties, a bunch of z list celebs I guess?

    However, some are attempting to cover up criminal offences and these MUST be made public and all parties including the judges who condone these cover-ups prosecuted.

  3. Hardly Z list, most of the injunctions are granted to the most rich or famous people in the country / world. Have you not seen the super / privacy injunction spreadsheet???

  4. This is disgraceful. Covering up such acts. This country is mad mad mad and wrong.

  5. Not Dame Barbara Mills as she was 70. The injunction says the person was 43 in 2003.

  6. wasn't a former prime minister in hospital at around that time with chest/heart problems? very little in the press at the time.

  7. "Hardly Z list, most of the injunctions are granted to the most rich or famous people in the country / world."

    [citation needed]

  8. No, according to the Independent's Untold story of gagging orders, 264 "protect" the interests of a child and 69 were issued by celebs.

    E.g. - the reason for