Superinjunction threads

Author
Discussion

Stuart

Original Poster:

11,635 posts

253 months

Tuesday 24th May 2011
quotequote all
Chaps,

As much of an ass as the law quite clearly is on this issue, it is nonetheless the law. If we name anyone in possession of a super-injunction then we're in contempt of court, and PH is unfortunately just big enough to be a potential target for any legal action. Contempt of court is a criminal, not civil, offence and the penalties are more serious. The other key difference between this and anything libellous is that a poster would be equally liable and equally likely to be hauled before the courts as a media owner.

So for this reason we'd appreciate if you were to steer clear of this subject matter for now. We've had a look at how other forums are dealing with this and even the football forums are moderating against injunction breaks.

Serious stuff, and the legal landscape is changing by the minute, but please respect our view on this for now.

As soon as the situation changes, we'll change our policy - it really isn't our desire to unnecessarily stifle debate on this issue, but we must protect ourselves.

Thanks,

Stuart


Shaw Tarse

31,544 posts

205 months

Tuesday 24th May 2011
quotequote all
The law is indeed an ass, is Imogen Thomas allowed to name the footballer, or is she still subject to the injunction?

Eric Mc

122,193 posts

267 months

Tuesday 24th May 2011
quotequote all
Let's all march on Trafalgar Square and start an anti-injunction riot. It's what usually ends up happening with these constitutional arguments.

Fittster

20,120 posts

215 months

Tuesday 24th May 2011
quotequote all
Stuart said:
PH is unfortunately just big enough to be a potential target for any legal action.
Is PH anything but a brand of Haymarket Consumer Media? Surely it's Haymarket media who would end up in court.

Is Michael Heseltine ultimately the owner of the site?

Hugo a Gogo

23,378 posts

235 months

Tuesday 24th May 2011
quotequote all
how do we know who we shouldn't name?

Puggit

48,531 posts

250 months

Tuesday 24th May 2011
quotequote all
Hugo a Gogo said:
how do we know who we shouldn't name?
Quite right!

HowMuchLonger

3,007 posts

195 months

Tuesday 24th May 2011
quotequote all
How about if we most from our mobiles while sitting in parliament?

Eric Mc

122,193 posts

267 months

Tuesday 24th May 2011
quotequote all
Apparently, there are supposed to be 53 such injunctions in force. Of course, we are not supposed to know this so we could be committing the crime of contempt of court and not be aware we are doing so.

That is the whole farcical nature of the situation and the sooner the concept of these injunctions is binned, the better.

Shaw Tarse

31,544 posts

205 months

Tuesday 24th May 2011
quotequote all
Puggit said:
Hugo a Gogo said:
how do we know who we shouldn't name?
Quite right!
This^^
How do the general public know who is subject to an injunction (at what level)?
If I was staying at an hotel & saw a former Miss Wales & a Man U player retiring to a room together & I tweeted about it would I be in trouble?

BigBob

1,471 posts

227 months

Tuesday 24th May 2011
quotequote all
Hugo a Gogo said:
how do we know who we shouldn't name?
I could tell you .....................




















..................... but then I'd have to kill you! wink




BB

Stuart

Original Poster:

11,635 posts

253 months

Tuesday 24th May 2011
quotequote all
Fittster said:
Is PH anything but a brand of Haymarket Consumer Media? Surely it's Haymarket media who would end up in court.

Is Michael Heseltine ultimately the owner of the site?
It is, and the individual who'd ultimately end up in court is an interesting one. However I'm not particularly inclined to find out!

It is a stupid situation, but at present we believe we've no choice but to take this line. The minute it changes, we'll change our policy on this.

130R

6,814 posts

208 months

Tuesday 24th May 2011
quotequote all
You have more chance of being hit by an asteroid that being hauled before the courts for posting the name of someone in possession of a super-injunction

PaulHogan

6,226 posts

280 months

Tuesday 24th May 2011
quotequote all
Happy to respect you on this. But can you clarify if this includes the Welsh footballer and the City banker or can we regard these two as now being in the public domain?

Stuart

Original Poster:

11,635 posts

253 months

Tuesday 24th May 2011
quotequote all
130R said:
You have more chance of being hit by an asteroid that being hauled before the courts for posting the name of someone in possession of a super-injunction
I'm inclined to agree, but the law is still the law, and it is our decision to make on whether to abide by it or not.

Stuart

Original Poster:

11,635 posts

253 months

Tuesday 24th May 2011
quotequote all
PaulHogan said:
Happy to respect you on this. But can you clarify if this includes the Welsh footballer and the City banker or can we regard these two as now being in the public domain?


This means anyone - individual or company - subject to a superinjunction until such time as that injunction is lifted. Thus Marr's affair is absolutely fine, welsh footballers not so.

130R

6,814 posts

208 months

Tuesday 24th May 2011
quotequote all
Stuart said:
I'm inclined to agree, but the law is still the law, and it is our decision to make on whether to abide by it or not.
Yep understand it from your point of view

Adrian W

14,006 posts

230 months

Tuesday 24th May 2011
quotequote all
How can I break a super injunction if I don't know it exists?









can someone let me know all of the injunctions that are in force, so I know if I break one

Edited by Adrian W on Tuesday 24th May 15:06

BliarOut

72,857 posts

241 months

Tuesday 24th May 2011
quotequote all
130R said:
You have more chance of being hit by an asteroid that being hauled before the courts for posting the name of someone in possession of a super-injunction
You could end up with a three day ban from NP&E though...

Digga

40,457 posts

285 months

Tuesday 24th May 2011
quotequote all
For absolute safety's sake - by means of sure and total avoidance of inadvertently naming anyone subject to a super injunction - might I suggest we now restrict all discussions to people who are either deceased or fictional?

mattviatura

2,996 posts

202 months

Tuesday 24th May 2011
quotequote all
Digga said:
For absolute safety's sake - by means of sure and total avoidance of inadvertently naming anyone subject to a super injunction - might I suggest we now restrict all discussions to people who are either deceased or fictional?
That's a point. Does an injunction cease with death or could the estate prosecute?

Bloody hell this ventures deep into the realms of the ridiculous doesn't it.