Super Injunctions

[Shar]

Ryan Giggs named in Commons as footballer who had injunction preventing details of his affair with Imogen Thomas

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1389841/Ryan-Giggs-named-super-injunction-footballer-affair-Imogen-Thomas.html#ixzz1NCYvZV97

It was bound to be released sooner or later...

What's your opinion on the recent gagging orders? Should people have the right to get them issued or are they over expensive and pointless. They're also only restricted for the rich - they cost around £50,000 and they're sometimes used to keep information from the public, such as the Trafigura incident in 2009 where the company disposed of toxic waste in Ivory Coast with no permission, killing 16.

Mostly all of the recent gagging orders, including trafigura, have been released on twitter. - your opinion on this?

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2009/10/20/SUPER-INJUNCTION.pdf?intcmp=239

[Inseriousity.]

I think super injunctions are pointless. Obviously there's the whole 'it's gonna be revealed eventually' and everyone knows about who's got one. In fact there's been subtle digs at the people who have them for a while now. Yesterday I read a columnist who put something like "Imogen thomas is rumoured to be taking part in I'm a celeb.... should be a good gig for her" lolol at the use of the word gig, I see what you did there!

There's the whole "I have a right to a private life"... well yes that's certainly true, they do have a right to a private life so I think if they "want to protect [their] family" they should keep it in their pants!

[FlyingJesus]

The whole system around them is going to have to be revised now anyway, it's become blatantly clear to anyone who can read that leaks on Twitter and other such social sites can't be stopped (for odd legal reasons as well as the obvious difficulty in policing what's posted) and so they're quickly becoming a total waste of 50k. The fact that anyone "exposed" isn't legally allowed to rebuke any claims against them doesn't help - if you have a superinjunction and someone outs you, you're breaking the terms of it by denying it, so basically the people who don't say anything about rumours is branded (often correctly in recent cases) as guilty.

[j0rd]

lol knew this ages ago because Imogen is from where I live. But ye, some of the jokes on twitter are so funny!

[Jordy]

******* useless response by Cameron, I'm constantly seeing him bang on about how bad Super Injunctions are, how about he does something about them then. He admits himself he doesn't even have a solution yet, how about you quickly draft a bill to rapidly push through parliament and get it done with quickly? If the law makers and some of the best educated people in the country can't come up with a quick solution then I really do worry. I'm sure an amendment or new Human Rights Act is all that's required.


Mr Cameron said the Government would look at the issue of super-injunctions and once again warned judges that it was Parliament’s job to create law.

"What I've said in the past is, the danger is that judgments are effectively writing a new law which is what Parliament is meant to do.

"So I think the Government, Parliament has got to take some time out, have a proper look at this, have a think about what we can do, but I'm not sure there is going to be a simple answer."

Mr Cameron suggested that one route might be to strengthen the Press Complaints Commission.The PCC isn't even the problem at hand?

[dbgtz]

I don't actually understand why people care about this so much?

[alexxxxx]

The press complaints comission is voluntary run by the newspapers themselves, so not exactly something they are likely to improve. The reason that they'd cited for the super injunction was the suspicion of blackmail by Imogen. Can't see the point in them to be honest.

[JerseySafety]

Why do people worry about this?

It's nothing really, although it is kinda interesting ready articles about it :)

[GommeInc]

They're wrong on every level and I have no idea how the Courts have managed to get the power to make up such a ridiculous law. Any Professor of Law will tell you that the law is meant to protect and serve everyone, but somehow these super injunctions are being reserved for the elite who pay out thousands of pounds for protection, even though they shouldn't cost this much and should be available for everyone.

Next you get the oppression of freedom of speech. Newspapers should be allowed to post information on who they want within reason and if Ryan Giggs has been having an affair then on his head be it as the media have a right to know as with any other celebrity, particularly one who has been seen as a role model for many people. If they didn't want to make a big deal about it, do what has been tried and tested and that's tell the media that it is a private matter. In fact, you could say these super injunctions have made it worse for these individuals, as when the truth comes out, it's going to hit them like a ton of bricks AND harder than if they just came out and admitted it to begin with. It's even worse when the media are not the only ones told not to post this information (the BBC in general are not allowed to reveal the information, not just BBC News as expected - any hint and you have to censor the information).

Then you get the idea that they will attempt to silence anyone, even innocent citizens completely unrelated to the media. Twitter, for instance, is the main tool for finding out this information, and you cannot silence the population of a country for what is essentially non-news (it only becomes news because such a big deal has been made about it).

I feel sorry for the media. I have no sympathy at all for these rich idiots who are chucking money away just to make themselves suffer more for when the information inevitably comes out.


If the law makers and some of the best educated people in the country can't come up with a quick solution then I really do worry. I'm sure an amendment or new Human Rights Act is all that's required.
From what I understand, there doesn't need to be a new law or amendments as there are already ones in place. If anything, the way the courts handle the law making process needs to be questioned, something we as general citizens do not need to get involved with of affected by. It's the courts taking power into their own hands (something that usually isn't a problem) that is the problem.

[sophiethenerd]

For celebrity's it is just wrong,however for victims of crime sometimes a superinjunction means the press wont reveal things about what happened that you want to be kept quiet.In that situation I think it is acceptable.

[Mathew]

As it's been said, they are just pointless because as soon as the word "super-injunction" is said, it's obviously going to give connotations of some dodgy business and you don't have to be Albert Einstein to understand what's happening. Indeed, they are reserved for celebrities and I think the media have the right to publish what they like. We should be living in a country where the press is free from the pressure of being caught up in pathetic business like this, or else it's going to end up like China where the mass media is biased and unproductive as the "government". If these complete and utter plonkers don't want their undeserved, fake reputation being tarnished, then they should have been happy with their supermodel of a girlfriend and Hollywood lifestyle and had themselves shipped off to Tahiti. Morons.

[GommeInc]

For celebrity's it is just wrong,however for victims of crime sometimes a superinjunction means the press wont reveal things about what happened that you want to be kept quiet.In that situation I think it is acceptable.
Exactly. Their use is for serious crimes and for serious crimes of "nobodies". Celebrities taking them out means they're wasting their time and the courts time, because the truth inevitably comes out sooner than later :P