Wednesday, June 1, 2011

Telegraph outs 13 injunctions


So the Telegraph has told us the pop star outed on the @Legal_AIDS list of 14 is wrong. This implicitly means the other 13 are correct as there is only one popstar on the list.

So what will the Courts being doing about that then?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/twitter/8548395/Pop-star-wrongly-identified-on-Twitter-over-injunction.html

[UPDATE]
Link is now dead. We shall make a complaint to the PCC.

10 comments:

  1. You haven't ever denied being a paedophile who raped and murdered a 14-year-old girl in 1993. Must mean you did it, right?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Today at High Court - News Group applying to lift Fred Goodwin injunction again so can reveal details of alleged affair.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hey anonymous (must mean you did it),

    You have to realise the newspapers are playing the game here. They know what the correct injunctions are, and by doing this can gleefully confirm them by omission. They thumb their collective noses at the injunctions while knowing there is not a snowflake in hell chance of them getting pulled up for contempt of court.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I was not at Cardiff on Monday, but wish I wasJune 1, 2011 at 11:53 AM

    The reason this tweeter has few followers is that enough people have worked out that based on past behaviour, they will never tweet again.

    Rather than meauring followers, perhaps retweets would be a better benchmark for these tweeter-outers

    ReplyDelete
  5. "You have to realise the newspapers are playing the game here. They know what the correct injunctions are, and by doing this can gleefully confirm them by omission."

    Because of course not denying it must mean it's true, right? The papers haven't printed anything denying that the author of this blog is a serial rapist. That must mean that not only was I right, but there's also a super-injunction out preventing this fact from coming to light, right? lrn2threevaluelogic

    From the frequency of the posts here, I originally suspected that perhaps the author of this blog has no job. But the writing is too cogent for this to be the case, which makes me wonder what they do that they have time in their working day to write all this drivel - which leads me to believe that the author is a journalist, probably working for the Murdoch papers.

    ReplyDelete
  6. telegraph link dead!!!! why would that be???

    ReplyDelete
  7. "lrn2threevaluelogic"

    This isn't a logic puzzle, or an arithmatic sum or a phsyics problem. This is real life where there is no black and white, only shades of grey.

    So, we have to do the best we can with what we have.

    Looking at the games the papers have played in the past, it seems highly probable they are doing it again. If I could find a bookie that would give me 50:50 odds, I would be prepared to be a lot of money (singly) on each of the remaining tweets containing the correct names. I probably wouldn't bet so much though if the only bet was on all 13 tweets being correct.

    I'd bet a ton of money that the blog author is not a serial rapist or peodophile though, because my only source for that is you, and you have no history of game playing at all.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The Telegraph article "Pop star in blackmail plot listed falsely on Twitter over injunction" is in the printed newspaper.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "This isn't a logic puzzle, or an arithmatic sum or a phsyics problem. This is real life where there is no black and white, only shades of grey."

    Thanks for the non-agreement agreement. Just to clarify, I pointed out that you failed at three-value logic, then go on to point out that real life is three-value logic. So, to repeat the important point, lrn2threevaluelogic. We have fourteen allegations - we do not know whether they are true or false, so they are unknown. A newspaper has confirmed one as false, so we have one false and thirteen unknowns. They haven't said anything about the other thirteen. For each of those, it could mean that the allegation is true, or it could mean that the allegation is false but they're not telling us - remember that this has been the gift that keeps on giving, they may in fact all be false, but they've got to fill tomorrow's paper, and the following day's, etc. Always handy to have a cheap bit of filler to hand. They may be saving "Actor not in affair" for next week.

    "I'd bet a ton of money that the blog author is not a serial rapist or peodophile though, because my only source for that is you, and you have no history of game playing at all."

    Because of course you know exactly who am I and exactly what I've done for the last ten years, right? Last time I checked, we had only one source with no history claiming that there was abuse going on at a certain care home. So, of course, when Panorama went in, they found no evidence of abuse whatsoever, yes?

    ReplyDelete

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