Longcol Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 It proves the case exists,you wouldn't know if reading only your so called reliable sources and watching the BBC etc,etc. No it doesn't - allegations without any evidence by a rather sad woman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vResistance Posted April 25, 2011 Author Share Posted April 25, 2011 No it doesn't - allegations without any evidence by a rather sad woman. I hope you are right but we'll probably never know will we ? Anyway Robert Green,he has been arrested ,raided,had items taken without a warrant , barred from entering at least one town in Scotland has been campaigning for years to get justice for Hollie.That in it's self is surely worthy of a story,even if it's ..."Mad bloke arrested for helping crazy lady with some ten year vendetta against the scottish police,judge,social services and her ex-husband and son." Why might someone have such a vendetta ? Because their Daughter was raped by a paedophile ring and they won't help her perhaps ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 I hope you are right but we'll probably never know will we ? Anyway Robert Green,he has been arrested ,raided,had items taken without a warrant , barred from entering at least one town in Scotland has been campaigning for years to get justice for Hollie.That in it's self is surely worthy of a story,even if it's ..."Mad bloke arrested for helping crazy lady with some ten year vendetta against the scottish police,judge,social services and her ex-husband and son." Why might someone have such a vendetta ? Because their Daughter was raped by a paedophile ring and they won't help her perhaps ? No - mad bloke alleging all sorts without any evidence - nothing like any evidence of rape - even less about a paedophile ring. You seem to want an investigation without evidence to back it up . Again for your made up "headline" - look up sub - judice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub_judice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 Wouldn't you want accusations to be fully investigated ? If I randomly accuse you of child molestation - would you want it fully investigated, and the fact of the investigation made public? Bear in mind that truthlogic and his ilk will consider a publication of innocence to be proof of your guilt being hushed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 It proves the case exists It proves that the story exists. It doesn't prove there is any case behind it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esme Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 Mod Note The question is "Super injunctions".Should there be a law against them ?, try to stay on topic please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teddie Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 Have they been fully investigated ?... NO. They were covered up and you are helping them. Feel good about yourself ? This is like the McCann case to me, unless you read the internet, you get no information, a wall of silence is surrrounding all this. At least with the McCanns you can read the police files! (Then make your mind up rather than rely on The Sun and Daily Mail!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkey Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 I'm not sure where I stand on super injunctions, probably against, but what makes me laugh (in a mithless way) is the way that it is all the same toe rags who have engaged in all the dirty tricks, from tapping people's phones, to mounting slur campaigns, blackmail and black propaganda in an attempt to to skew the democratic process in this country, who are now whinging about 'feedom of speech' and 'democracy' because they apparently believe it is vital to our fundamental freedoms and rights that we should know which footballer has put his willy in which hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 I'd like our society to reach a point where super injunctions aren't needed because nobody is interested in other peoples private lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 Does anyone know what would happen if a newspaper broke a story because they didn't know that a superinjunction was in place. It's quite possible that 2 newspapers were independently investigating someone. The celeb gets wind of Newspaper A's investigation and takes out a superinjunction to keep them quiet. I presume newspaper A will be formally told of the injunction, (to do so, the courts must surely name the celeb to the newspaper?). However, who tells newspaper B? Do the courts tell them and name the celelb to them? For newspaper B, we must say every newspaper, as any one of them could be newspaper B. So, if a superinjunction is taken out, then do the courts advise every newspaper of who it is? I doubt it, as the story would then be sure to leak out. But if they don't, how can a newspaper be censured for breaking a story when they didn't (and presumably couldn't) know it had been gagged? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.