Saturday, April 30, 2011

They are all at it



Ed Miliband, leader of the labour party was apparently the lover of Andrew Marr's ex lover who is a prominent political commentator. (daily mail).

Looks like all these three people are paid by the UK tax payer so we should have a right to know what is going on.

So who are the people denying the UK taxpayer how his money is being spent? Ask Spearman and Tomlinson. (independent)

Royal Wedding honeymoon super injunction

A journalist has told me there is a super injunction already being sent out to the media to stop it covering, mentioning or speculating on where the Royal couple (for those who missed it a couple of twenty somethings were married at Westminster Abbey yesterday) are going for their honeymoon.

Now privacy should of course be respected but when the UK taxpayer is funding the honeymoon then they have a right to know where William and Catherine are going. Personally I am not interested whether it is Australia, Canada or New Zealand but many are are it will soon be outed on the internet and again show us what a joke these UK focused injunctions are.

Witness protection, national security, "not in the public interest" injunctions are fine. The rest are a farce.

Friday, April 29, 2011

Labour MP has sex

The latest injunction coming out is from a Labour MP, "Nigel Griffiths, a close friend of Gordon Brown, allegedly smuggled a woman into his office on Armistice Day" (telegraph) and had sex on camera.

But this isn't new news at all. Guido Fawkes reported this in December 2009.

But then this blog took the story from the News of the World in March 2009.

So now we have the media trying to grab headlines about super injunctions that came out years ago. They cannot name anyone and are getting increasingly frustrated that twitter et al can blag and brag without recourse.

Thursday, April 28, 2011

Wikipedia used to out injunctors


As reported in the telegraph most of the injunctors are being named in wikipedia.

Sometimes it is there, sometimes it isn't; try this one for example.

Wikipedia has said it may block editing to these people's profiles so in essence Wikipedia knows who has taken out the injunctions which it must not reveal.

Imogen Thomas, someone who may or may not have been injuncted although she seems to think she has, spilled the beans and pleaded poverty. (daily record). Checking wikipedia and she hasn't been injuncted.

Although if you view the Wikipedia editing history you can see she was, then wasn't. Someone editing Wikipedia thinks Ryan Giggs maybe behind it after all.

Super injunctions are a farce.

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Fred Goodwin was a banker injunction

One of the most hated bankers of the 2008 credit crunch was Gordon Brown's mate Fred Goodwin.

He presided over RBS, a bank that invested heavily in things it knew little about and was nationalized by the UK government.

Fred Goodwin walked away with a multi million pound pension and lives the good life.

So when he got an injunction to stop the press calling him a banker, we couldn't believe it. So it has taken an MP, John Hemming, to out the man using parliamentary privilege and we applaud him for doing so.

Goodwin is someone who has made a mockery of the judge driven privacy laws in the UK.

Is it in the public's interest that a man the UK tax payer has funded should get protection? No.


(telegraph)

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

Super Injunction distration

So we have a lawyer saying super injunctions are the fault of money grabbing slappers and the men are innocent by standers.

Lawyers are an odd breed. They start out life wanting to make the world a better and safer place but then end up being time sheet whores. Every minute counts for every minute is a chargeable fee.

So Baroness Deech says something and it all it does is protect the fee income of the lawyers she represents. Lawyers are like socialists - always wanting to make things complicated so unworthy and useless jobs can be created. (telegraph)

BBC super injunctions

The BBC has been caught out by the super injunction farce.

Firstly a Tory MP mouthed Ryan Giggs on a quiz show ...



and then a BBC hack wrote a vitriolic attack on the blogsphere ...

What happens in the next five years will define the future of democracy for the next century and beyond. This is nothing less than a revolution and all revolutions create fear and uncertainty as one age makes way for another.

Ian Hislop attacks the BBC (who he also works for)

Both show how the BBC is completely out of touch. Now we have Andrew Marr, a BBC paid journalist who took out an injunction has realized he is a hypocrite. Or was it the BBC pushing him. Probably.

Andrew thinks bloggers are sad fucks.

Marr paid maintenance for several years before DNA test revealed daughter was not his

Friday, April 22, 2011

Gossip, lies and injunctions

Super Injunctions just make people nosy.

The problem is they perpetuate rumours and lies to be circulated around the web at an alarming pace. If a rumour is not picked up by the main media the reaction is they are gagged so it must be true. Whether this matters or not is neither here or there but it damages the media. Once the main media is known to be censored, then how can we be sure the news it is reporting is true anymore?

The latest gossip involves Alan Shearer who may or may not have taken out an Injunction (comeonboro). Of course the web has always been home to innuendo, gossip and lies but as with the infamous "Steven Gerrard gets 16 year old girl pregnant" (football) which circulated the web for a long period of time, it never became a mainstream story in the press. Is that because it wasn't true or was there an injunction in place?

If a newspaper publishes a story that is untrue it is likely they will be taken to court and over the years the media has tightened up its reporting procedures because there are many PR consultants willing to take on the newspapers. But if the newspapers are being forced not to cover stories, however trivial, then they are effectively being run by rich people who can determine what shall be published.

With Ryan Giggs, Hugh Bonneville and Ewan McGregor being touted as recent injunctors (source: twitter, facebook, forums), they are effectively guilty until proven innocence. It is highly unlikely they will prosecute those who outed them because doing so implies they are guilty and have something to hide. It is all so catch 22.

Of course there are situations where injunctions due to breach of contract are necessary. But if a man with immense wealth injuncts his mistress because she wants to sell some photos then like Tiger Woods, he should attempt to pay them off. If he thinks it is blackmail then he should take her to court. Of course the best thing would not to get into these sorts of scrapes but we are talking on the whole about not very smart people with large egos and bank balances. Perhaps in the future they will force their play away partners to sign confidentiality contracts...

Super Injunctions are unenforceable

The recent super injunction has involved people who would normally not know of its existence playing a game of guessing who is behind it.

The football forums outed the sports personality many days ago and like a great tsunami this has spread across Twitter, Facebook and other forums in the UK and abroad. Look at the links to your right and you can see what the gossip and tittle tattle says. We all love secrets and puzzles and guessing the celebrity is just too much fun.

Breaching this court order, if you know about it, is a criminal offence. Does this mean Blogger, Facebook and Twitter who have deep pockets will appear in court? No. They are not in the UK, technically, and have large deep pockets and would hire even more expensive lawyers to defend themselves as messengers. It is unlikely Google et al were ever sent letters mentioning the court order as the courts still believe the UK public still read paper newspapers and so sent it to them.

Spycatcher in the 1980s was in a different era when there was just paper communications for the masses and referring to this legal precedent is redundant in an era of global instantaneous communication.

There used to a be law where it was illegal to photograph India from the air. Google Earth came out and the law became a joke. These super injunctions are turning into a UK joke.

Thursday, April 21, 2011

The Times tells us who the married man is

Except its redacted....

(http://twitpic.com/4nj7aq) (@alexedouard)

Share photos on twitter with Twitpic

But as "Mr Justice Eady said the interim injunction was served on the media to take advantage of the Spycatcher doctrine that anyone who knew of the order and disclosed the confidential information would be liable to be punished for criminal contempt of court." (daily mirror)

So surely the Times knows of the order and is in contempt of court. I have read about it and by mentioning it I am also in contempt as are all the readers of the Times. Most of the UK media has reported on the order so they and its readers are in contempt.

The courts have enough to do than struggle with a contempt of court that probably involves 10 million UK citizens.

The Human Rights Act 1998 needs to abolished. It is a sham. Using a contra mundum order in a privacy case is way out of order.

And so David Cameron is saying the same thing (evening standard)

World wide gagging order

The UK has decided to hand out a world wide gagging order with no end date. To even discuss it will result in a spell in the tower of London.

A married TV star wins 'worldwide' gagging order from judge as reported in the telegraph.

Normally these are issued in relation to witness protection or national security. In this case the courts want to make sure the persons involved do not suffer from hurt feelings.

This is what the Sun thinks:

"a growing menace to Britain's proud tradition of free speech - and a creeping spread of draconian privacy laws even though none have been passed by Parliament.

They prevent news organisations reporting what has happened even if it can be proved true."

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Super Injunctions In the UK


Peculiar to the UK, those with power and wealth (mostly men) are stopping the once free press from doing their job. Most laws do not stretch into other jurisdictions so how is it that the UK population cannot see or hear and yet those in Australia or Taiwan or the USA can.

This is why the Guardian hates them.

This is what the Evening Standard says about them.

Here is what a blogger is saying about who his hiding behind the Star Wars loving Helen Wood sex for £195 revelations and here is what the Asians think on youtube.

This is what a super injunction looks like from Guido Fawkes on youtube

UK MP's can say what they want - youtube