"Super injunctions".Should there be a law against them ?

[vResistance]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/13/super-injunctions-guardian-carter-ruck

 

"Libel lawyers Carter-Ruck and Schillings have proved adept at persuading judges that injunctions should now be granted on privacy grounds. Some tabloid newspapers are being served with "a handful" of such orders each week, according to media lawyers. The Guardian has been served with at least 12 notices of injunctions that could not be reported so far this year, compared with six in the whole of 2006 and five the year before.

 

The motivation is straightforward, according to Mark Stephens, a partner at law firm Finer Stephens Innocent. "As the libel and privacy capital of the world, people are coming here [to London] to bully the media and NGOs into not reporting on their nefarious activities," he said."

 

I think these things are dangerous.

Perhaps the real reason we don't get to hear the truth about certain things in the main Media.

 

Like http://www.tpuc.org/node/34 paedophiles protected.

 

"Blair issued a D-Notice, resulting in a gag order on the press from publishing any details of the investigation. Blair cited the impending war in Iraq as a reason for the D-Notice. Police also discovered links between British Labour government paedophile suspects and the trafficking of children for purposes of prostitution from Belgium and Portugal (including young boys from the Casa Pia orphanage in Portugal)".

 

Also the Hollie Greig/Robert Green case and certain human rights issues being covered up,like Man jailed for posting DVD. (see info in my signiture).

 

Maybe these injuctions have the power to force "public" forums to monitor and control what is posted on them.

 

They can be good for nothing.

[HeadingNorth]

Privacy grounds are a lot more convincing than security grounds; nobody has the right to know what goes on in someone else's private life, unless that someone else wishes it to be disclosed.

[vResistance]

Privacy grounds are a lot more convincing than security grounds; nobody has the right to know what goes on in someone else's private life, unless that someone else wishes it to be disclosed.

 

But they will ,unless you have the means to get an injunction.

[HeadingNorth]

But they will ,unless you have the means to get an injunction.

 

Perhaps the privacy laws should be changed so that papers are never allowed to discuss people's private lives without first obtaining permission, or persuading a judge that it's in the public interest.

 

We might then have newspapers that reported news instead of gossip, for one thing.

[vResistance]

Perhaps the privacy laws should be changed so that papers are never allowed to discuss people's private lives without first obtaining permission, or persuading a judge that it's in the public interest.

 

We might then have newspapers that reported news instead of gossip, for one thing.

 

true if it's just a privacy thing but can we trust they wouldn't be used to to "gag" the press on things we should know about (in the public's interest).

I couldn't give a damn about who's shagging who etc.

 

For instance the John Hill case,could the government have put a gag on the reporting because they just don't want the general public to know what they are up to and fear the reaction it could cause ?.

And what has happened to Robert Green since he began campaigning on behalf of Hollie Greig ?.

Some out there have suggested it's because the public would have no interest and there are more important things to report like ,erm, jordan's got some new breasts or summet.

I would suggest it's because of these gagging orders which surely should have no place in our society.

[Longcol]

For instance the John Hill case,could the government have put a gag on the reporting because they just don't want the general public to know what they are up to and fear the reaction it could cause ?.

And what has happened to Robert Green since he began campaigning on behalf of Hollie Greig ?.

 

Hill = mad

 

http://mtrial.org/muaddib/reasons

 

Robert Green and Hollie Greig = no evidence

 

http://www.annaraccoon.com/madeleine-mccann/robert-green-hollie-greig/

 

No injunctions, just nothing any serious journalist would go anywhere near (ie lack of any evidence, rantings of mad people etc.).

 

If you want to believe then fine, that's your choice - just don't expect to impose it on everyone else.

[truthlogic]

Pedophillia and it's connection to the elite keep popping up every wear !

 

May be that's the reason we have a masonic illuminati symbol for the British child protection agency !

 

May be that's why we can take tens of thousands of kids from thief parents but can't fish them any other suitable homes ,

[vResistance]

Hill = mad

 

http://mtrial.org/muaddib/reasons

 

Robert Green and Hollie Greig = no evidence

 

http://www.annaraccoon.com/madeleine-mccann/robert-green-hollie-greig/

 

No injunctions, just nothing any serious journalist would go anywhere near (ie lack of any evidence, rantings of mad people etc.).

 

If you want to believe then fine, that's your choice - just don't expect to impose it on everyone else.

 

Hi longcol,didn't think you'd be far away.

So you don't think there's one journalist that would like to do a story on those cases ?

[Longcol]

So you don't think there's one journalist that would like to do a story on those cases ?

 

Not anyone who isn't as bonkers as Richard Hall.

 

http://www.richplanet.net/

 

He seems to believe in all sorts of barmy stuff.

 

I wouldn't class him as journalist either.

[vResistance]

Pedophillia and it's connection to the elite keep popping up everywhere !

 

It does rather.