|
Stuart
Original Poster
11,448 posts
121 months
PH Director Bloke
|
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
19,325 posts
73 months
|
The law is indeed an ass, is Imogen Thomas allowed to name the footballer, or is she still subject to the injunction?
|
|
|
Eric Mc
67,846 posts
135 months
|
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
15,012 posts
83 months
|
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
15,397 posts
103 months
|
how do we know who we shouldn't name?
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Puggit
29,683 posts
118 months
|
Hugo a Gogo said: how do we know who we shouldn't name? Quite right!
|
|
|
HowMuchLonger
2,608 posts
63 months
|
How about if we most from our mobiles while sitting in parliament?
|
|
|
Eric Mc
67,846 posts
135 months
|
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
19,325 posts
73 months
|
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
1,292 posts
95 months
|
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!  BB
|
|
|
Stuart
Original Poster
11,448 posts
121 months
PH Director Bloke
|
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.
|
|
|
Gaz.
47,315 posts
121 months
|
Fittster said: 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. PH would go to court alongside HM. Note that The Sun went to court yesterday to have this injunction overturned and lost, so it is still illegal to break the injunctions even though most of Fleet Street & TV have chosen to publish & be damned. That is their choice and not one we can make.
|
|
|
130R
4,395 posts
76 months
|
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
2,409 posts
148 months
|
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
11,448 posts
121 months
PH Director Bloke
|
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
11,448 posts
121 months
PH Director Bloke
|
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
4,395 posts
76 months
|
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
8,236 posts
98 months
|
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
|
|
|
BliarOut
53,698 posts
109 months
|
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...
|
|
|
Guam
15,575 posts
138 months
|
I think this is absolutely the right call From PH/Haymarket standpoint.
Until revoked the Injunctions remain in force. Whether everyone knows or not is not the issue.
Frankly I dont see why any organisation should offer its wallet (and the liberty of its staff), to make a point that no longer needs making.
These things are a dead duck now, the courts and Parliament will have to figure something out going forward to resolve this idiocy.
Good call IMHO (sad though it is to say so).
|
|
