WTF is it with judges in this country?
Discussion
Mr Justice Eady, who has been at the centre of most recent controversial libel and privacy cases, made the injunction “against the world” rather than just against national newspapers and broadcasters.
His order seeks to prevent the publication of “intimate photographs” of a married public figure after a woman tried to sell them for a “large sum of money”.
The judge said the woman “owed” the claimant, identified only as OPQ, a “duty of confidence” and breaching his privacy would damage the health of the man and his family.
His order is intended to cover discussion of the case online as well as in traditional media, despite the difficulties in enforcing it.
The injunction contra mundum is intended to be never-ending and, as its Latin name suggests, applies to the entire world.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-ord...
WTF is wrong with judges? This judge should be taken outside and shot.
His order seeks to prevent the publication of “intimate photographs” of a married public figure after a woman tried to sell them for a “large sum of money”.
The judge said the woman “owed” the claimant, identified only as OPQ, a “duty of confidence” and breaching his privacy would damage the health of the man and his family.
His order is intended to cover discussion of the case online as well as in traditional media, despite the difficulties in enforcing it.
The injunction contra mundum is intended to be never-ending and, as its Latin name suggests, applies to the entire world.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-ord...
WTF is wrong with judges? This judge should be taken outside and shot.
TEKNOPUG said:
How do injunctions and super injunctions work? They are supposed to stop stories being made public but if the details of the injunction aren't made public, how are people to know that they aren't to publish them?
Serious question
That's a good question actually, I've never thought about it like that!Serious question
maxxy5 said:
I was irked by this but then I wondered whether it is really in the defensible public interest to know about these people's private affairs, vs familial turmoil with it all over the red tops. It's not exactly watergate is it. Undecided on it.
It's a privacy law for rich people, no?Johnnie Footballers can make millions through indorsements with Mothercare and being made Father of the Year, but we, the public who are buying products based on his endorsement, aren't allowed to know that he's a serial shagger with 12 b
d children?Zaxxon said:
Eric Mc said:
Judges do good work.
Carry on.
Judge Pickles, the recent poppy burning and Koran burning judges?Carry on.
Not all of them are worthy of their wigs.
Judges make thousands of decsions every day, every year. The vast bulk of these decisions are fair and equitable - i.e. just. That's is what they are paid to do - make just decisions.
Occasionaly, a decision is made that some people will not find agreable.
Often, judges are FORCED to make a decision against their own beter "judgement" because they are constrained by the law as set out in statute. They do not have absolute power to dispense justice any way they like. The bulk of their decisions are based on how they interpret the legislation as set out.
In other words, they are making "judgements".
Eric Mc said:
Did I say all of them were?
Judges make thousands of decsions every day, every year. The vast bulk of these decisions are fair and equitable - i.e. just. That's is what they are paid to do - make just decisions.
Occasionaly, a decision is made that some people will not find agreable.
Often, judges are FORCED to make a decision against their own beter "judgement" because they are constrained by the law as set out in statute. They do not have absolute power to dispense justice any way they like. The bulk of their decisions are based on how they interpret the legislation as set out.
In other words, they are making "judgements".
Eady is an exception. He has been criticised a number of times by other judges. He was recently demoted. Yet, it appears, he can invent laws without reference to parliament nor, as importantly, us. I don;t give a damn about footballers but I do worry that rich corporations will be able to block, for instance, reports of them polluting all over the world. What's next? Not reporting wars in case it upsets someone.Judges make thousands of decsions every day, every year. The vast bulk of these decisions are fair and equitable - i.e. just. That's is what they are paid to do - make just decisions.
Occasionaly, a decision is made that some people will not find agreable.
Often, judges are FORCED to make a decision against their own beter "judgement" because they are constrained by the law as set out in statute. They do not have absolute power to dispense justice any way they like. The bulk of their decisions are based on how they interpret the legislation as set out.
In other words, they are making "judgements".
I'm all for judges interpreting law and extending current laws. However, Eady has a bee in in wig about privacy. This seems to be a one-man campaign.
As someone pointed out, this is a law for rich people and rich corporations. I know the law generally follows the money but this is extreme.
Whilst judges generally do a stirling job, and one which they do not get recognition for, Eady falls outside that generalisation.
I regard him a dangerous. It's about time the law society did something about him.
Zaxxon said:
Eric Mc said:
Judges do good work.
Carry on.
Judge Pickles, the recent poppy burning and Koran burning judges?Carry on.
Not all of them are worthy of their wigs.
Google Christopher Ball, Chemlsford Crown. Utter, utter embarrassment. 19y/o serial offender with 100+ previous offences, less than a slap on the wrist.
Eric Mc said:
Did I say all of them were?
Judges make thousands of decsions every day, every year. The vast bulk of these decisions are fair and equitable - i.e. just. That's is what they are paid to do - make just decisions.
Occasionaly, a decision is made that some people will not find agreable.
Often, judges are FORCED to make a decision against their own beter "judgement" because they are constrained by the law as set out in statute. They do not have absolute power to dispense justice any way they like. The bulk of their decisions are based on how they interpret the legislation as set out.
In other words, they are making "judgements".
Total rubbish. I can only assume you have little experience with the legal system, in all of its forms, in the Uk.Judges make thousands of decsions every day, every year. The vast bulk of these decisions are fair and equitable - i.e. just. That's is what they are paid to do - make just decisions.
Occasionaly, a decision is made that some people will not find agreable.
Often, judges are FORCED to make a decision against their own beter "judgement" because they are constrained by the law as set out in statute. They do not have absolute power to dispense justice any way they like. The bulk of their decisions are based on how they interpret the legislation as set out.
In other words, they are making "judgements".
It offers no real benefit to anyone other than those who make it and those who implement it. For the rest of us it's an expensive burden to support.
My experience has led me to genuinely question the sanity of the political and legal minds who have developed it who, just in case you hadn't realised, include all the judges we are saddled with, at one period or another in their 'careers'.
Eric Mc said:
Judges make thousands of decsions every day, every year. The vast bulk of these decisions are fair and equitable - i.e. just. That's is what they are paid to do - make just decisions.
No, they don't make thousands of decisions each day. There are many good judges out there who do indeed always keep justice in mind - which is after all the intent of the civil legal proceedings and is set out as the "over-riding" objective of the court.
However, there are many awful judges who make terrible decisions daily (often flying in the face of the precedent which binds them and even legislation), ruining lives and requiring people to appeal. This then leads to a further issue, namely the higher judges seek to protect (often) the lower judges who have made appalling decisions. This then leads to further injustice.
Justice Eady is well known for going too far in respect of privacy law and has been criticised for doing so (this is a very, very unusual step for a higher court to take).
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff