25 replies to this topic

[Paul]

We've had cause to delete a couple of posts and status updates which have been naming the rumoured identity of at least one celeb alleged to have taken out a 'super injunction'. As this website is based in england, we are bound by the law in england and as such any user breaking the injunction is in fact breaking the law and could find themselves in a fair bit of trouble for doing so.

With this in mind, please do not post any names rumoured to be involved in these injunctions..

[Summer of 95]

Paul, on 20 May 2011 - 18:18 , said:

We've had cause to delete a couple of posts and status updates which have been naming the rumoured identity of at least one celeb alleged to have taken out a 'super injunction'. As this website is based in england, we are bound by the law in england and as such any user breaking the injunction is in fact breaking the law and could find themselves in a fair bit of trouble for doing so.

With this in mind, please do not post any names rumoured to be involved in these injunctions..

Surely there is no law in the UK against naming them? I'm not aware of a "Celebrity Protection Act 2011", but I'll check Parliament and Yougov sites just in case......

It's a free country, and if any mediocre footballer, failed banker or "TV star" sues the likes of Netweather they should be in court- for treason. Because they are betraying the freedom that is the birthright of anyone born in Britain.

[Paul]

Well clearly you're unaware of the law, as an injunction is in place to stop them being named, that's legally binding - why do you think no uk media or newspaper has named them?!

And for reference, the person making a post is legally responsible for that..

[Summer of 95]

Paul, on 20 May 2011 - 21:43 , said:

Well clearly you're unaware of the law, as an injunction is in place to stop them being named, that's legally binding - why do you think no uk media or newspaper has named them?!

And for reference, the person making a post is legally responsible for that..

I'm quite aware that these injunctions are illegal, they came about because of abuse of the vestiges of the British justice system by judges kowtowing to a foreign dictatorship, the EU. The same EU that made it possible for these footballers to earn enough to buy people's silence.

Imagine if we didn't/couldn't know about Profumo because of a ruling by USSR judges.... the mind boggles!

[mountain shadow]

There is no such thing as Uk law. I'm being pedantic, but Scotland and Northern Ireland have separate legal systems to England and Wales.

I'm not much interested in tittle tattle of Pro footballers, however a 30 second google search tells you all you need to know as non UK websites have all the info you need.

The absurdity is that these injunctions are pointless as the WWW holds no secrets.

[eboue is god]

The law may be an ass, but It should be respected or we'd have anarchy

[CatchMyDrift]

Paul, on 20 May 2011 - 21:43 , said:

Well clearly you're unaware of the law, as an injunction is in place to stop them being named, that's legally binding - why do you think no uk media or newspaper has named them?!

And for reference, the person making a post is legally responsible for that..

Even if that person lives abroad and therefore isn't covered by the super-injunction?!

[Supercell]

CatchMyDrift, on 22 May 2011 - 07:52 , said:

Even if that person lives abroad and therefore isn't covered by the super-injunction?!

Could get the owners of a UK based forum in to trouble for allowing such comments, that breach the super-injuction, to be posted.

[Phil UK]

Good question, Supercell.

Now if Twitter (Which I do not use. Only Facebook on occasions.) is based in the US then they are exempt from UK juristiction so you can post whatever you want about who and whatever.

But I can also see Paul's point of view as this is primarily a UK based weather forum, although requiring membership and a password to access certain areas. I think we should wait until those 'powers that be' removes such an antiquated ruling. (Which will probably be the Twelth of Never!)

Phil.

[Paul]

It's a bit of a grey area, but this taken from wikipedia sums things up - with the location of the user and the servers (in our instance the UK) being taken account of in law, so that means that in theory it makes no difference where the user is, they are still likely to be bound by the law in the UK when posting to this site.

Quote

Certainly, the frontier idea that the law does not apply in "Cyberspace" is not true. In fact, conflicting laws from different jurisdictions may apply, simultaneously, to the same event. The Internet does not tend to make geographical and jurisdictional boundaries clear, but Internet users remain in physical jurisdictions and are subject to laws independent of their presence on the Internet.^[4] As such, a single transaction may involve the laws of at least three jurisdictions:

• the laws of the state/nation in which the user resides,
• the laws of the state/nation that apply where the server hosting the transaction is located, and
• the laws of the state/nation which apply to the person or business with whom the transaction takes place.

So a user in one of the United States conducting a transaction with another user in Britain through a server in Canada could theoretically be subject to the laws of all three countries as they relate to the transaction at hand.^[5]

http://en.wikipedia....ts_of_computing

[CatchMyDrift]

Supercell, on 22 May 2011 - 09:54 , said:

Could get the owners of a UK based forum in to trouble for allowing such comments, that breach the super-injuction, to be posted.

Very true!!

The thing I don't understand is this, if the person who had this affair had simply done nothing it would now be yesterday's news and no-one would be bothered. I feel sorry for the family!

Edited by CatchMyDrift, 22 May 2011 - 12:32 .

[Lauren]

Sorry

I posted a link to the website naming all the injunctions. Didn't realise that was illegal

[CatchMyDrift]

Lauren, on 22 May 2011 - 18:35 , said:

Sorry

I posted a link to the website naming all the injunctions. Didn't realise that was illegal

Only if you're English or posting on an English website...us Scots can say what we want as long as it isn't on an English site.

I still can't believe that Graham Norton had an affair with Anne Widdicombe...honestly?!!

[mountain shadow]

Maybe Salmond should get a .sco suffix set up.

We now have a bizarre situation where everyone in the world can know who he his apart from the English and Welsh.

[crepuscular ray]

Actually, I'm not sure that it wouldn't be wiser for posters on Scots sites to be careful. The injunction was granted by an English judge in apparent conformity to EU human rights legislation. The English judge - obviously and rightly - has no jurisdiction over courts in Scotland, but what ruling the courts in Europe would give to disclosure in Scotland - contrary to EU human rights so it seems - is anyone's guess.

It's still a bloody loony ruling. If he's got caught with his trousers down, he should put up with the consequences.

[Lauren]

CatchMyDrift, on 22 May 2011 - 19:43 , said:

Only if you're English or posting on an English website...us Scots can say what we want as long as it isn't on an English site.

I still can't believe that Graham Norton had an affair with Anne Widdicombe...honestly?!!

I posted a link to the twitter account revealing all the injunctions.

[crashlanding]

Plus Paul is the Boss and what he says goes....if this is a forum rule stick to it!

[CLH the red dragon]

As usual, and such is the case on other sites, members continue to blur their right to do what they think they can do (they can't) with the fact that it causes issues for the site owner (who does publish what a member says).

So, if you have any respect for the site owner, shut up.

To clear up a few issues, for those unable to ascertain what has actually happened, rather than reading the Daily Mail.

1. The judgment in CTB v (1) Imogen Thomas and (2) Newscorp is NOT subject to an injunction in itself. It is available on the Court Service website. There is no breach of any injunction in stating this OR reporting the content of it.

2. This is NOT a superinjunction. It's an anonymised one. Therefore the identity of the Claimant cannot be reported. Neithter can anything not in the judgment.

3. It is an injunction which is based on existing law. The backgroud law is the conflict between Art 8 and Art 10 of the ECHR as given force by the Human Rights Act.

4. Does anyone not see the irony in an adulterer hiding behind the law (parliamentary privilege) to "out" an adulterer hiding behind the law?

This is the judgment for anyone who would like to be just that little better informed.

http://www.bailii.or.../2011/1326.html

Edited by CLH the red dragon, 24 May 2011 - 09:43 .

[CLH the red dragon]

And, if you fancy a giggle, this is an excerpt from NGN's attempt to vary the judgment yesterday: (all public and unrestricted):

"Mr Spearman raises the alternative argument, verging on the bathetic, that The Sun should at least be allowed to tell the Claimant's wife what it knows, or thinks it knows. This is a difficult one to follow. NGN is a media group legitimately interested in making profits from communicating to the world at large. It surely does not aspire to the role of social worker or "relationship counsellor". Its Article 10 rights are hardly engaged by this subsidiary argument at all. It was faintly suggested, therefore, that it should be allowed to pass on the story to the Claimant's wife in the furtherance or protection of her Article 8 right to family life. The Claimant regards this as so much humbug. The point of Article 8 is that it is not supposed to be any of NGN's business."

How awesome that they care.

[CatchMyDrift]

CLH the red dragon, on 24 May 2011 - 09:46 , said:

As usual, and such is the case on other sites, members continue to blur their right to do what they think they can do (they can't) with the fact that it causes issues for the site owner (who does publish what a member says).

So, if you have any respect for the site owner, shut up.

To clear up a few issues, for those unable to ascertain what has actually happened, rather than reading the Daily Mail.

1. The judgment in CTB v (1) Imogen Thomas and (2) Newscorp is NOT subject to an injunction in itself. It is available on the Court Service website. There is no breach of any injunction in stating this OR reporting the content of it.

2. This is NOT a superinjunction. It's an anonymised one. Therefore the identity of the Claimant cannot be reported. Neithter can anything not in the judgment.

3. It is an injunction which is based on existing law. The backgroud law is the conflict between Art 8 and Art 10 of the ECHR as given force by the Human Rights Act.

4. Does anyone not see the irony in an adulterer hiding behind the law (parliamentary privilege) to "out" an adulterer hiding behind the law?

This is the judgment for anyone who would like to be just that little better informed.

http://www.bailii.or.../2011/1326.html

No inderdicts were served in Scotland so none of the above applies to me...it always amazes me that people continue to believe that there is such a thing as UK law. English law is always quite backward compared to Scots law, but I suppose that a younger legal system will always have to play catch up