Super-Injunctions

andy-hughes | 23:32 Mon 23rd May 2011 | ChatterBank

30 Answers

As this story reaches its final giddy heights, i think we are in danger of losing sight of the real issue here.

The problem with SI's is not when they are used by entertainment figures to cover up affairs - which surely teaches them after this, that you are better letting the media publish, and the story die a death, than try and suppress it and be made to look like a rich coniving cowardly fool, instead of just a rich faithless fool.

No, the issue is that if SI's are used to cover up activities by MP's, heads of public companies, lawyers, judges etc., then we do have a serious issue with the supression of free speech and the public interest.

Let's hope that does filter down among the frothy nonsense about a footballer who has behaved badly, and then compunded his actions by behaving shamefully as well.

Any ideas about protecting his wife and children from publicity will look rather pointless in the morning.

fell asleep for 4 hours when got in from work

Night night song from Mamya♥

Answers

21 to 30 of 30

First Previous 1 2

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by andy-hughes. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.

Davethedog

I think we have transcended this now, we are talking about basic freedom of speech. When the judiciary say they are going to prevent parliamentary privilege, something has to be done.

Its not a case of privacy but what is being covered up, not the infidelities but criminality and or worse.

Sqad

Dave...I agree, but unfortunately, infidelities and criminality come as a package.....you take one, you take them all.

Davethedog

Sqad I think I was being simplistic. What I was trying to say is that these injunctions cover many things not just infidelities and if we erode our freedom of speech how long before we live in Stalins Russia etc (yes I know a bit extreme)

The basic defense seems to be don't publish, think of the wife, think of the children, did the very famous footballer think of either when he was being unfaithful? If you stick your "head" in the Lions mouth sooner or later it will clamp its jaws.

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.... mumble mumble more cliches mumble

Sqad

Dave...LOL...another cliche for you "There for the grace of God go I"

;-)

andy-hughes

Question Author

Speak for yourself Sqad!

jno

Davethedog, there's still an argument that the kids shouldn't have to pay the price for their parents' stupidity. It's like after a divorce - the kids go where is best for them, not necessarily to the best-behaved parent.

The judiciary can't overrule parliamentary privilege but as someone pointed out to the MP in this case, if he doesn't like the law it's his job to change it - not to flout it. The judges apply the laws made by MPs.