Thursday, June 9, 2011

Judges stay firm on Goodwins mistress


We have been here before. The Goodwin injunction which gags the media from mentioning who he may or may not have had an affair with during the time of the worst nationalisation since the Second World War, effectively still stays.

The rest of the world knows who she is ...just type Fred Goodwin into Google and they kindly suggest who she is ...but some stubborn Judges will not be bullied into lifting anything.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/sir-fred-goodwin-affair-injunction-upheld-2295062.html

Here is the judgment in full:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/1437.html

8 comments:

  1. Every time I read a judge has refused to lift a super injunction of a case which is publicly known it makes me wonder what planet these judges live on.

    I guess they live in Teletubbyland just like Ken.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yeah but the judge said that the purpose of the existing injunction "is not to keep a secret but to prevent intrusion and distress".

    So i take it that they are not bothered much about geeky predictive searches. Not too stressful for her...

    whereas being splashed all over the front page of the News of The Screws would be!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Perhaps people should read the judgment before commenting or leaping to conclusions. Essentially, the Sun can make clear the fact of the relationship, the fact it was with CEO Fred Goodwin, and the job description of the woman. These are rightly matters of public interest for many reasons. The identity of the woman is not a matter of public interest, when balanced with the right to a private life. This is applicable to newspapers and Tugendhat makes it clear that he doesn't care about Tweeter or the internet or watercooler gossip. At this moment, newspapers have a reach and an assumed authority beyond that of the internet. There isn't much in it that isn't 'common sense'.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I do like the fact that it stops the press from harassing and maltreating, 'innocent' people. It's the intrusion bit that really gets me. None of the photographers or journalists give a flying fuck about the feelings of people not involved in these injunctions but they will hang about outside their houses just to get a shot of them. If judgements like this stop actions like that then i'm all for them

    ReplyDelete
  5. You mean that we aren't allow to say that Fred Goodwin had an illict affair with his subordinate Susan Bor? Or that he promoted her several times within the Royal Bank of Scotland while the company was going down the financial toilet? Isn't that in the public interest, more than any footballer sleeping with a d-list big brother contestant?

    ReplyDelete
  6. AnonyMouse can say all of that, as can anyone with access to the internet. The Sun (and other newspapers) cannot although they can describe the job description of the lady, once the details have been worked out for varying the injunction (or something like that).

    ReplyDelete
  7. Let's hope that there are no other ladies in the Royal Bank of Scotland with the same job description as the lady in question.

    ReplyDelete
  8. She will undoubtedly be identifiable by anyone who wants to join the dots, but secrecy isn't the purpose of the varied injunction...it's simply to stop the press publishing her name.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.