PDA

View Full Version : Superinjunctions



NickFitz
8th May 2011, 18:56
My word, what a to-do on Twitter now somebody's posted all those names!

I assume it's contempt of court or some such if I link to the relevant account, or say what the slightly-inverted username is, or which hashtag it uses on its tweets :bluelight

Still, none of them are people I expected to be any better than they ought to be ;)

AtW
8th May 2011, 19:02
They've missed one - sasguru is DimPrawn's sockie...

NickFitz
8th May 2011, 19:04
For old-skool CUKers, the Usenet newsgroup uk.legal may be of interest (although there's at least one name missing from the list there).

AtW
8th May 2011, 19:11
Well, it's in the papers now:

Exposed on Twitter: Top-secret super-injunction names revealed on internet | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1384883/Exposed-Twitter-Top-secret-super-injunction-names-revealed-internet.html?ito=feeds-newsxml)

NickFitz
8th May 2011, 19:18
Well, it's in the papers now:

Exposed on Twitter: Top-secret super-injunction names revealed on internet | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1384883/Exposed-Twitter-Top-secret-super-injunction-names-revealed-internet.html?ito=feeds-newsxml)

As usual, the Mail gets it wrong: that isn't the account that posted the original tweets, which include all the names names which may or may not be associated with the actual injunctions and are neither blocked nor censored in any way :rolleyes:

cojak
8th May 2011, 20:44
Some are hilarious and probably untrue, since I've only just read them (ta NF!) it's difficult to tell the true from the false.

Pondlife
8th May 2011, 20:51
Imogen from BB's liking for another welsh rarebit is the worst kept secret in football I am told.:tongue

realityhack
8th May 2011, 20:57
If it's contempt of court to state what is in the public domain, that is - the fact that searching for #superinjunction would possibly reveal information about a super injunction, and that said search on a public site leads you to many users, one of which is here: Twitter (http://twitter.com/#!/InjunctionSuper) ...then let them try and sue me.

realityhack
8th May 2011, 21:02
Anyway - how do we know whether that user isn't just making up those names?

AtW
8th May 2011, 21:03
Anyway - how do we know whether that user isn't just making up those names?

We'll know the truth was told if they are dead by tomorrow morning! :eek

MarillionFan
8th May 2011, 21:07
If it's contempt of court to state what is in the public domain, that is - the fact that searching for #superinjunction would possibly reveal information about a super injunction, and that said search on a public site leads you to many users, one of which is here: Twitter (http://twitter.com/#!/InjunctionSuper) ...then let them try and sue me.

In addition I heard that Jordan is a dirty slapper who is shagging some Argentinian fella having been married to a cage fighter and a singer.

MarillionFan
8th May 2011, 21:09
Anyway - how do we know whether that user isn't just making up those names?

AtW was caught shagging two Hollywood A-Lister female stars by a top famous Film Director all of whom have taken out a superinjunction to stop them being named.

Well, least that's what he told me. :tongue

Pondlife
8th May 2011, 21:10
In addition I heard that Jordan is a dirty slapper who is shagging some Argentinian fella having been married to a cage fighter and a singer.

I'm not sure the contents of a superinjunction and hello magazine are the same thing, although I may be wrong.

MarillionFan
8th May 2011, 21:19
Anyway - how do we know whether that user isn't just making up those names?

Based on the fact that the Mail has posted an article up linking to the tweet account, showing it editted and stating that 'someone' has named a load of people in the superinjunctions means you can take that as clarification that someone did just name the correct people. If it was a hoax(which the press would have known was untrue) then they wouldn't have confirmed it.

So in fact I reckon the Mail just shot itself in the foot by putting the article up and confirming it and is now in contempt.

Nick, you got two birds with one stone by starting that Twitter account!:laugh

AtW
8th May 2011, 21:34
Nick, you got two birds with one stone by starting that Twitter account!:laugh

:eek:

russell
8th May 2011, 21:43
Giggs might want to have a look at that divorce lawyer thread :wink
Now we know the real reason he was doing yoga :wink

AtW
8th May 2011, 21:59
Giggs might want to have a look at that divorce lawyer thread :wink
Now we know the real reason he was doing yoga :wink

Did you get that superinjunction yet to prevent you being called a sockie? :wink

NickFitz
8th May 2011, 22:12
Based on the fact that the Mail has posted an article up linking to the tweet account, showing it editted and stating that 'someone' has named a load of people in the superinjunctions means you can take that as clarification that someone did just name the correct people. If it was a hoax(which the press would have known was untrue) then they wouldn't have confirmed it.


As I pointed out earlier, the Mail got the wrong account - the one they show is in fact a parody of the one that names names. Typical Mail fail :D

OwlHoot
8th May 2011, 23:06
What puzzles me is where these upstart judges get the idea they can dictate what is and is not discussed in Parliament.

I thought MPs' discussions in Parliament were privileged, and immune from suit. In fact I'm sure they are.

Maybe the Mail got that part wrong, if such a thing can be believed. :rolleyes:

d000hg
8th May 2011, 23:32
Well, it's in the papers now


As usual, the Mail gets it wrongPerhaps you might have posted a link to a solid report in your first post, which would also have explained what on earth you were on about :)

AtW
8th May 2011, 23:59
I thought MPs' discussions in Parliament were privileged, and immune from suit. In fact I'm sure they are.

Yes they are, however MPs need first to know the info in the first place and whoever (not MP) tells them that will break the super injuction...

It's about time for US style constituion - freedom of speech, right to bear firearms etc :mad

NickFitz
9th May 2011, 02:43
Perhaps you might have posted a link to a solid report in your first post, which would also have explained what on earth you were on about :)

There weren't any "solid reports" at the time - news breaks on Twitter these days , you have to wait hours for MSM (mainstream media) to catch up :nerd

E.g. "Helicopter hovering above Abbottabad at 1AM (is a rare event). (https://twitter.com/#!/ReallyVirtual/status/64780730286358528)"

cojak
9th May 2011, 06:47
AtW was caught shagging two Hollywood A-Lister female stars by a top famous Film Director all of whom have taken out a superinjunction to stop them being named.

Well, least that's what he told me. :tongue
Whilst wearing a cape and mortarboard... :laugh

NotAllThere
9th May 2011, 08:17
As I don't live in the UK, am I still subject to a UK injunction?

eek
9th May 2011, 08:20
As I don't live in the UK, am I still subject to a UK injunction?

No but the publisher of this website and the web hosting company would be equally liable(*) if either have a presence in the UK.

* that is not exactly true but they would be liable if they did not remove the post as soon as they became aware of it.

d000hg
9th May 2011, 08:25
There weren't any "solid reports" at the time - news breaks on Twitter these days , you have to wait hours for MSM (mainstream media) to catch up :nerd

E.g. "Helicopter hovering above Abbottabad at 1AM (is a rare event). (https://twitter.com/#!/ReallyVirtual/status/64780730286358528)"Bah, Twitter isn't news.

grumble grumble, the world's not what it used to be, etc.

NotAllThere
9th May 2011, 08:35
No but the publisher of this website and the web hosting company would be equally liable(*) if either have a presence in the UK.

* that is not exactly true but they would be liable if they did not remove the post as soon as they became aware of it.

Great. Posted on an expat site now.

MarillionFan
9th May 2011, 09:29
Great. Posted on an expat site now.

The Uk has an extradition treaty with Switzerland you know.

Meet Bubba, your new cell mate.

:rollin:

NotAllThere
9th May 2011, 10:42
If it's contempt of court to state what is in the public domain, that is - the fact that searching for #superinjunction would possibly reveal information about a super injunction, and that said search on a public site leads you to many users, one of which is here: Twitter (http://twitter.com/#!/InjunctionSuper) ...then let them try and sue me.Contempt of court doesn't get you sued - it's a crime against the judicial system. It gets you big fines and jail terms. It's wide open to abuse. Fortunately, the judges don't use it often.


The Uk has an extradition treaty with Switzerland you know.Silly. No crime has been committed on UK territory. That's why the UK won't extradite the journalists of the local rag breaching these injunctions.

doodab
9th May 2011, 10:54
News is news, publish and be damned I say, Britain needs someone to take this bullshit on head on, become a cause celebre and have people take to the streets in a popular uprising until the whole superinjunction culture is stamped out.

I expect such a campaign would get quite a lot of support because people love celebrity gossip.