Of Injunctions and Super-injunctions

Today we learn that pop singer Harry Styles has obtained an injuction to prevent the from press harassing him. Evidently he was chased about by great teams of paparazzi, which must have been a right pain. There was much talk of Leverson and privacy and so on...

However, think of Leverson, and Hacked Off, and all the celebs wishing to push it much further, from reasonable privacy into seriously curbing the legitimate investigative powers of the press. Who are the poster boy and poster girl couple of Hacked Off?

A few days ago I was watching Sky rolling news, and it got to around 10:30pm with Anna Botting introducing the review of the following day's papers. I forget who the female journalist reviewer was, but the man was Iain Blair, ex head of the Met. All three were joking about the next day's Daily Express front page. It could have been 'New Arthritis Cure' or it could have been 'Wild and Freezing Weather on its Way'.... or something similar, and all three laughed, and said that the Express almost ALWAYS has a health story or a weather story on it front page. Then Anna Botting laughed again and said: 'Or a Princess Diana story, or a Madeleine McCann story!" 'OOOOOooo! Careful!', shrieked Iain Blair, and all three laughed again... knowingly.

This makes me GUESS (and it is just a guess) that everyone, but everyone in the Met, or the media, is aware that the McCanns have a superinjunction, which says that not only can they not be discussed in the press in any way, but that no-one shall know that they have such an injunction...

I'm sure they have an injunction. All that money to lawyers -

The thing is....injunctions cost money.


You can't just pay one fee and get one everlasting injunction.


Money doesn't last forever .....Vultures die or fade away but there will always be new vultures...waiting....waiting for the right moment to pounce .


What goes around...comes around.

They can have as many injunctions as they like wont protect them once Andy's had his Christmas turkey and a few sherbets he's going to take them to the cleaners.    

I thought Redwood's last appearance on the supposedCcrimewatch update was spot on. He said words in answer to the interviewer's questions, but he effectively said NOTHING AT ALL... which is the attitude he should be taking. He also looked wooden, (no pun intended this time) and he also looked thinner. It surely is a poisoned chalice, this case.

comperedna wrote:I thought Redwood's last appearance on the supposedCcrimewatch update was spot on. He said words in answer to the interviewer's questions, but he effectively said NOTHING AT ALL... which is the attitude he should be taking. He also looked wooden, (no pun intended this time) and he also looked thinner. It surely is a poisoned chalice, this case.

He seemed to me even in the Crime watch program, to have an odd expression. Not gullible but trying to look wide eyed and breathless: look what we found! Isn't it good, that we found the person in all these efits?!

Like he wouldn't be or wasn't aware that finding the biggest, best reason to suppose there was an abduction  - that is, actually SEEING IT HAPPEN - was just some guy carrying his kid home from a crèche just as you'd suppose would be happening that night - by, in fact, no less than 15 people! Everyone in the night crèche carried his child home!

The crèche is above the reception which is on one end of the resort - all people leaving to take kids home FROM there to the resort would be heading the opposite way to what Jane suggested she had seen and that can't have escaped him.

yet he says they've broken some new news! They've found an Important Clue! And what that clue does is say that all the stuff McCanns have done --  from the first mention of this guy to the PJ on May 4, up through Mitchell standing waving it on the steps of the Met wearing his pretend copper uniform, all the stories they approved for the papers - up until Kate's book where she states that not only did Jane see the abduction go down but that she doesn't blame her for not chasing the guy down and saving Madeleine, up til TODAY, when they still have that Tannerman efit on their website - is wrong, it's bullsh*t.

it didn't happen.

Now unless he's a bigger dumb arse than you'd expect to be put in charge of an investigation upon which hangs Cameron's government (well, maybe) and the reputation of SY (certainly) - he knew - he KNEW, he had to have known - what this did to the McCann case for an abduction and to their reputation after 6 years of this garbage. Boom.

never mind putting the efit they came up with - the "new" information - of Smithman - looking just like the father of the child. Go and look for him, everyone!

He COULD have said, McCann investigators brought us this - making them seem more innocent like they were helping - but he claims it's new stuff they, SY, uncovered, guaranteed to make the actual person who delivered the efit, but was not paid for his work, furious -- and indeed that former MI5 spy came out and said not only is this not new but I did it, and I did it 5 years ago, AND McCanns lawyers suppressed it.

No kind of detective worth the paper his remit was written on would NOT know all of this stuff before he got on a widely promoted TV program with it. Yet he went on, with his big blinky eyes and threw McCanns RIGHT under the bus.

If he didn't, and this was just all coincidental and accidental - OH BOY, what archery karma has!

Well it still remains to be seen if Andy is as cunning as a professor of cunning at cunning university.com,he should have tanner in the palm of his hand ready to squeal if so.

Lioned wrote:They can have as many injunctions as they like wont protect them once Andy's had his Christmas turkey and a few sherbets he's going to take them to the cleaners.     

Sounds like you have had a few sherbets yourself Lioned if you believe that one. Tell me which flavour and I will have a couple myself   

fuzeta wrote:

Lioned wrote:They can have as many injunctions as they like wont protect them once Andy's had his Christmas turkey and a few sherbets he's going to take them to the cleaners.     

Sounds like you have had a few  sherbets yourself Lioned if you believe that one.  Tell me which flavour and I will have a couple myself    

Its that time of year when i have been known to hallucinate a bit.  

I know what you mean Lioned   

Lioned wrote:Well it still remains to be seen if Andy is as cunning as a professor of cunning at cunning university.com,he should have tanner in the palm of his hand ready to squeal if so.

What exactly about?

She and Jez agree on where Gerry was standing, so it seems she was there - and not the one lying, about that, at least.

Gerry's insistence in the mockumentary, in Jane's face, about where he recalls himself standing, had her all but in tears.

Why? because they disagreed on that slight point?

Or because if she is wrong about that she could have been wrong about tannerman? The sighting they built their whole case on?

I thought Kate's bit in the book how she didn't blame Jane but found solace that at least they had seen Madeleine being taken away, was bizarre. Because at least they knew  she didn't disappear into thin air. ? Really? Was that ever an option? Doesn't Kate mean because she knew at least that there had been an ABDUCTION - that alibi'd them? That seems to be the concern, always. I am happy because at least someone saw someone stealing my child, even if they did nothing, which proves it was not our fault.

Kate wonders if she had been there, having just checked - as of course Gerry did - if she'd have thought that was her daughter being taken away.

I'm sorry but I call Bullsh*t on that. I would blame the person who saw my child being kidnapped and did nothing - irrational though it may be. I would also blame Matt. What kind of freaking check was that? Thanks for nothing. She doesn't blame HERSELF for not checking on her kid herself, of course. It was her turn; their door was left unlocked; she was the one supposedly so worried about madeleine waking up. She's her mother.

How did jane know Gerry had JUST BEEN IN to check? For all she knew he could have stood there five minutes chatting up Jez and not been in the apt yet.

No mention of not being mad at GERRY for not doing something when he noticed the door open to the room - but Maddie in "exactly" the same position they'd "left her" - who the hell was supposed to have opened the door in that case? One of the twins?

If you noticed the exact position she was in and the exact degree of the door's openness - and checked the master bedroom to see if madeleine had gone in there, then you do so because the door open is suspicious. Finding the child in her bed exactly as you last saw her, you then wave off what you can't explain away, and still get back to the bar in a hurry  - the door being open? A proper check with that suspicion would have revealed the abductor and instead of a missing child we'd have a potential abductor being kicked to a pudding as he lurked behind the door - by an enraged father with all his alarm bells on full alert and blood in his eye.

No mention of not being mad at GERRY for not noticing his child being carried off - top runner in his age group; surely HE would have been the one to give chase, and to "put his hands on the man's shoulder.... and saved madeleine" - not Jane.

Gerry was her father, Gerry was there " at the minute", Gerry was standing waylaying Jez boring him with stories of fathers and daughters and their checking routine ! Gerry was the one sent to check on Madeleine - yet - she's not mad at JANE?

How did this get to be jane's fault - with Saint Kate not blaming her?

Kat'es exoneration of Jane smacks more of "don't think I'm mad at you, we're fine, you and I, I will support you to the world so don't come back and screw me" rather than the real feelings of a mother to a stupid woman who had seen her darling baby being carried away and just lumbered on up the street assuming Gerry had just been in the house - and didn't even tell about it til later, well after Maddie was gone.

Kate's reaction of fury to even being questioned tells me she has quite a hot temper (if her battering of the walls and railings didn't do that) and her inability to take on any accountability, ever,  indicates she would blame and be furious with Jane and Gerry if they were both there at the minute it happened, which she wants us to believe they both were.

That she is saintly and forgiving in the circumstance most likely to make you want to lash out at someone - how could you be so stupid, so blind? -  rings false.