Injunctions and Superinjunctions

Major review under way

Media should be allowed into hearings re injunctions. Greater clarity. Judges should not be the ones deciding criteria!

They are not going to be so easily obtained for everything!

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/latest/2011/05/20/super-injunctions-review-published-115875-23142803/

pennylane wrote:Major review under way

Media should be allowed into hearings re injunctions. Greater clarity. Judges should not be the ones deciding criteria!

They are not going to be so easily obtained for everything!

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/latest/2011/05/20/super-injunctions-review-published-115875-23142803/

Already you can look on twitter for who has a superinjuction against them.

Badboy wrote:

pennylane wrote:Major review under way

Media should be allowed into hearings re injunctions. Greater clarity. Judges should not be the ones deciding criteria!

They are not going to be so easily obtained for everything!

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/latest/2011/05/20/super-injunctions-review-published-115875-23142803/

Already you can look on twitter for who has a superinjuction against them.

Thanks Badboy,

From what I heard today on Sky.... there are various categories under injunctions and super injunctions, and it's all set up in a very complex manner.... so there may be some that aren't known about? I couldn't quite follow what they were saying.... but it isn't as cut and dried as I thought.

Badboy wrote:

pennylane wrote:Major review under way

Media should be allowed into hearings re injunctions. Greater clarity. Judges should not be the ones deciding criteria!

They are not going to be so easily obtained for everything!

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/latest/2011/05/20/super-injunctions-review-published-115875-23142803/

Already you can look on twitter for who has a superinjuction against them.

I'm not on Twitter, so will you tell me who they are?

I recently did a little foray into Injunctions and Super Injunctions - I think it's mostly Super Injunctions that the 'celebs' and prominent people go for because they want to hide something which affects their character and standing in the community. But Injunctions per se have actually been around a long time - mostly to do with court and civil cases

These are some common reasons for injunctions:
stalking
domestic violence
harassment
discrimination
bullying (in some cases)
physical or sexual abuse
the wrongful transfer of real property, also called fraudulent conveyance
the disclosure of sensitive information in line with the Official Secrets Act 1989 (UK only)
trademark infringement
copyright infringement
patent infringement
trade secret disclosure
tortious interference of contract
criminal contempt
civil contempt

Super Injunctions (gagging orders) recently have been about the press and stopping them from printing anything about people in the public eye. But they are also used in cases where people's lives may be at risk (eg. child offenders) and other cases where companies don't want bad publicity.

Apparently it costs £50,000 to take out a super-injunction which is why it is confined to Celebrities and Rich Business and is effectively a gagging order.
Of course the Dailies are saying it is not fair that rich People can enjoy the privilege that others can"t but I must admit that on Balance the British tabloids can say what they like about people because standards are so low and the CCp is ineffectual. Unless, it is a crime or Fraud I think everyone"s
life is private and what they do is their business, the distress caused to their Families is incalculable .

I remember the case of Max whatsisname who attended the same CCP meeting with Gerry He apparently bought the services of Dominatrix and was
villified by the Press, but his Family suffered from the Publicity as well as him and at the end of the day, whose business was it .

Panda wrote:
Apparently it costs £50,000 to take out a super-injunction which is why it is confined to Celebrities and Rich Business and is effectively a gagging order.
Of course the Dailies are saying it is not fair that rich People can enjoy the privilege that others can"t but I must admit that on Balance the British tabloids can say what they like about people because standards are so low and the CCp is ineffectual. Unless, it is a crime or Fraud I think everyone"s
life is private and what they do is their business, the distress caused to their Families is incalculable .

I remember the case of Max whatsisname who attended the same CCP meeting with Gerry He apparently bought the services of Dominatrix and was
villified by the Press, but his Family suffered from the Publicity as well as him and at the end of the day, whose business was it .

Max Moseley.... I agree.... nobody's business, and I was totally disinterested in learning about his fetishes! Now Major and Currie, that would have been very interesting... but of course the press never exposed them; Edwina did!

Can you believe Arnold Schwarzenegger having an affair for 20 years with his maid, and fathering a child too, and the paparazzi and/or The National Enquirer never getting wind of it until now?

pennylane wrote:

Panda wrote:
Apparently it costs £50,000 to take out a super-injunction which is why it is confined to Celebrities and Rich Business and is effectively a gagging order.
Of course the Dailies are saying it is not fair that rich People can enjoy the privilege that others can"t but I must admit that on Balance the British tabloids can say what they like about people because standards are so low and the CCp is ineffectual. Unless, it is a crime or Fraud I think everyone"s
life is private and what they do is their business, the distress caused to their Families is incalculable .

I remember the case of Max whatsisname who attended the same CCP meeting with Gerry He apparently bought the services of Dominatrix and was
villified by the Press, but his Family suffered from the Publicity as well as him and at the end of the day, whose business was it .

Max Moseley.... I agree.... nobody's business, and I was totally disinterested in learning about his fetishes! Now Major and Currie, that would have been very interesting... but of course the press never exposed them; Edwina did!

Can you believe Arnold Schwarzenegger having an affair for 20 years with his maid, and fathering a child too, and the paparazzi and/or The National Enquirer never getting wind of it until now?

Hi Pennylane, as I was saying, it"s all about money and how you can buy your Privacy Mary Whitehouse would be turning in her grave at the the state of the Media now.

Panda wrote:

pennylane wrote:

Panda wrote:
Apparently it costs £50,000 to take out a super-injunction which is why it is confined to Celebrities and Rich Business and is effectively a gagging order.
Of course the Dailies are saying it is not fair that rich People can enjoy the privilege that others can"t but I must admit that on Balance the British tabloids can say what they like about people because standards are so low and the CCp is ineffectual. Unless, it is a crime or Fraud I think everyone"s
life is private and what they do is their business, the distress caused to their Families is incalculable .

I remember the case of Max whatsisname who attended the same CCP meeting with Gerry He apparently bought the services of Dominatrix and was
villified by the Press, but his Family suffered from the Publicity as well as him and at the end of the day, whose business was it .

Max Moseley.... I agree.... nobody's business, and I was totally disinterested in learning about his fetishes! Now Major and Currie, that would have been very interesting... but of course the press never exposed them; Edwina did!

Can you believe Arnold Schwarzenegger having an affair for 20 years with his maid, and fathering a child too, and the paparazzi and/or The National Enquirer never getting wind of it until now?

Hi Pennylane, as I was saying, it"s all about money and how you can buy your Privacy Mary Whitehouse would be turning in her grave at the the state of the Media now.

Yes she would indeed![b]

I see the footballer who has been playing away more often than just the fixture list is trying to obtain user details from Twitter for those outing him - which rather confirms the naming on Twitter was correct. As his name has also appeared in foreign newspapers it does seem rather a pointless waste of money. Or maybe it is his lawyers using him to try and deter future tweets about other injunctions.

Chris wrote:I see the footballer who has been playing away more often than just the fixture list is trying to obtain user details from Twitter for those outing him - which rather confirms the naming on Twitter was correct. As his name has also appeared in foreign newspapers it does seem rather a pointless waste of money. Or maybe it is his lawyers using him to try and deter future tweets about other injunctions.

Who was it Chris Peter Crouch?

Panda wrote:

Chris wrote:I see the footballer who has been playing away more often than just the fixture list is trying to obtain user details from Twitter for those outing him - which rather confirms the naming on Twitter was correct. As his name has also appeared in foreign newspapers it does seem rather a pointless waste of money. Or maybe it is his lawyers using him to try and deter future tweets about other injunctions.

Who was it Chris Peter Crouch?

I couldn't possibly say there is a superinjunction! (but it wasn't Crouch who was named).

It is laughable really someone kept adding about the injunction to the individual's Wiki page but it kept being deleted. Of course amendments to Wiki are available in the history.

Chris wrote:

Panda wrote:

Chris wrote:I see the footballer who has been playing away more often than just the fixture list is trying to obtain user details from Twitter for those outing him - which rather confirms the naming on Twitter was correct. As his name has also appeared in foreign newspapers it does seem rather a pointless waste of money. Or maybe it is his lawyers using him to try and deter future tweets about other injunctions.

Who was it Chris Peter Crouch?

I couldn't possibly say there is a superinjunction! (but it wasn't Crouch who was named).

It is laughable really someone kept adding about the injunction to the individual's Wiki page but it kept being deleted. Of course amendments to Wiki are available in the history.

I was watching the news when Jemima Khan was "outed" and the reporter said she had made the situation even worse by denying she had taken out an
injunction. whereas the T.V. Sports Presenter allegedly having a fling with Alan Shearer stayed schtumm.

Panda wrote:

Chris wrote:I see the footballer who has been playing away more often than just the fixture list is trying to obtain user details from Twitter for those outing him - which rather confirms the naming on Twitter was correct. As his name has also appeared in foreign newspapers it does seem rather a pointless waste of money. Or maybe it is his lawyers using him to try and deter future tweets about other injunctions.

Who was it Chris Peter Crouch?

NO,IT ISN'T
MAYBE IF YOU GOOGLE INJUCTION/SUPERINJUCTION/INJUCTIONSUPER,IT WILL COME UP WITH THOUSANDS OF PAGES TELLING ALL ABOUT IT

Badboy wrote:

Panda wrote:

Chris wrote:I see the footballer who has been playing away more often than just the fixture list is trying to obtain user details from Twitter for those outing him - which rather confirms the naming on Twitter was correct. As his name has also appeared in foreign newspapers it does seem rather a pointless waste of money. Or maybe it is his lawyers using him to try and deter future tweets about other injunctions.

Who was it Chris Peter Crouch?

NO,IT ISN'T
MAYBE IF YOU GOOGLE INJUCTION/SUPERINJUCTION/INJUCTIONSUPER,IT WILL COME UP WITH THOUSANDS OF PAGES TELLING ALL ABOUT IT

Hi Badboy,

Nah, I"m not THAT interested that i want to trawl through thousands of Pages,

Panda wrote:

Badboy wrote:

Panda wrote:

Chris wrote:I see the footballer who has been playing away more often than just the fixture list is trying to obtain user details from Twitter for those outing him - which rather confirms the naming on Twitter was correct. As his name has also appeared in foreign newspapers it does seem rather a pointless waste of money. Or maybe it is his lawyers using him to try and deter future tweets about other injunctions.

Who was it Chris Peter Crouch?

NO,IT ISN'T
MAYBE IF YOU GOOGLE INJUCTION/SUPERINJUCTION/INJUCTIONSUPER,IT WILL COME UP WITH THOUSANDS OF PAGES TELLING ALL ABOUT IT

Hi Badboy,

Nah, I"m not THAT interested that i want to trawl through thousands of Pages,

Some of us have had a 'guess' here, Panda
https://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t14565-super-injuction

Panda wrote:

Chris wrote:

Panda wrote:

Chris wrote:I see the footballer who has been playing away more often than just the fixture list is trying to obtain user details from Twitter for those outing him - which rather confirms the naming on Twitter was correct. As his name has also appeared in foreign newspapers it does seem rather a pointless waste of money. Or maybe it is his lawyers using him to try and deter future tweets about other injunctions.

Who was it Chris Peter Crouch?

I couldn't possibly say there is a superinjunction! (but it wasn't Crouch who was named).

It is laughable really someone kept adding about the injunction to the individual's Wiki page but it kept being deleted. Of course amendments to Wiki are available in the history.

I was watching the news when Jemima Khan was "outed" and the reporter said she had made the situation even worse by denying she had taken out an
injunction. whereas the T.V. Sports Presenter allegedly having a fling with Alan Shearer stayed schtumm.

I guess it is Catch 22. JK denied she had applied for any injunction which allowed the press to report the denial irrespective of whether she had or hadn't.

Max Clifford is on TV now speaking about it.

Our frisky footballer, whose name is similar to Biggs, is on a hiding to nothing - Twitter is based in California and would have to be pursued through the Californian courts.

His lawyers are just trying to scare people IMHO.

I think twitter will be taken off the internet the way things are going. It is far too intrusive now not just about people having extra marital affairs, which IMO is no-one"s business but their own, but on other items which are Government sensitive. I am not a Member of twitter nor have any desire to be,we already have a British Press mainly made up of Tabloids ready to invade the Private Lives of well known people for the sake of improving Sales.

Panda wrote:
I think twitter will be taken off the internet the way things are going. It is far too intrusive now not just about people having extra marital affairs, which IMO is no-one"s business but their own, but on other items which are Government sensitive. I am not a Member of twitter nor have any desire to be,we already have a British Press mainly made up of Tabloids ready to invade the Private Lives of well known people for the sake of improving Sales.

The likelihood of Twitter being taken down is IMO remote in the extreme. Twitter is US based and therefore protected to a large extent for the comments posted by its users. The users themselves could be attacked but you have to identify them first. The action launched by he-who-must not-be-named seems to have backfired spectacularly with his name now being tweeted by thousands such that he was a trending topic. He has also been named in mainstream US publications and not just in foreign language online newspapers. It is interesting now also that some UK newspapers are virtually directing their readership to where the name can be easily found by saying he has been named in "X" magazine etc. It has also been suggested that if he takes to the pitch in this afternoon's premiership match the chants have already been prepared.

Chris wrote:

Panda wrote:
I think twitter will be taken off the internet the way things are going. It is far too intrusive now not just about people having extra marital affairs, which IMO is no-one"s business but their own, but on other items which are Government sensitive. I am not a Member of twitter nor have any desire to be,we already have a British Press mainly made up of Tabloids ready to invade the Private Lives of well known people for the sake of improving Sales.

The likelihood of Twitter being taken down is IMO remote in the extreme. Twitter is US based and therefore protected to a large extent for the comments posted by its users. The users themselves could be attacked but you have to identify them first. The action launched by he-who-must not-be-named seems to have backfired spectacularly with his name now being tweeted by thousands such that he was a trending topic. He has also been named in mainstream US publications and not just in foreign language online newspapers. It is interesting now also that some UK newspapers are virtually directing their readership to where the name can be easily found by saying he has been named in "X" magazine etc. It has also been suggested that if he takes to the pitch in this afternoon's premiership match the chants have already been prepared.

Hi Chris,

One of the Tabloids showing a Woman saying "come clean" appears to be Imogen, how much was she paid for that? It was on the sky snippet "what the papers say" but I didn"t see which paper.Another huge Volcano eruption in Iceland which may affect air travel like the last one, barely gets a
mention it says much for ther standards of reporting nowadays.

Breaking News


the Glasgow Herald has published a Photo of Mr Higgs just with his eyes covered and apparently they are not subject to the same Lawa as the U.K

The photo is already being shown on twitter.

4:42pm UK, Sunday May 22, 2011
A Scottish national newspaper has claimed it has identified the footballer at the centre of a legal injunction.

The Sunday Herald published a full page headshot of a football star on its front page - merely covering his eyes with a black bar, which features the word 'censored'.

The newspaper's actions come after a British player obtained a superinjunction to prevent details of an alleged affair with former Big Brother contestant, Imogen Thomas, being published.

Technically, the newspaper is free to publish the footballer's name, as the injunction does not apply in Scotland.

However, most publications have not exploited this opportunity because of the possibility that copies would be sold south of the border.

In an editorial, the newspaper defended its decision by saying: "We believe it unsustainable that the law can be used to prevent newspapers from publishing information that readers can access at the click of a mouse.

Imogen Thomas

Imogen Thomas, the former Big Brother star at the centre of the injunction row

"We should point out immediately that we are not accusing the footballer concerned of any misdeed.

"Whether the allegations against him are true or not has no relevance to this debate."

The near-unmasking is the latest blow to the player's attempts to keep his identity under wraps.

Users of Twitter posted messages claiming to reveal who he was as soon as news of the injunction first emerged.

Then the messages spiked last week as the player's lawyers announced that he would be suing the website and "persons unknown" for breaching the court order.

At one point the name of a particular footballer was mentioned at a rate of up to 16 times a minute.

A spokesman for Schillings, the law firm representing the footballer, said: "An application has been made to obtain limited information concerning the unlawful use of Twitter by a small number of individuals who may have breached a court order."
Latest Blogs




Boulton & Co.
May 20, 2011 12:55 AM
Twitter Put In Its Place

Wikipedia also suggesting Mr Biggs could be the man involved. Feel sorry for his wife and kids..

fedrules wrote:Wikipaedia also suggesting Mr Biggs could be the man involved. Feel sorry for his wife and kids..

Yes fedrules, I do as wel, and honestly think the publice does NOT hve a right to know what goes on in someone"s life .He has been hounded and crucified by twitter and now a Scottish Newspaper, as if there isn2t enough going on in the World to report on .!!