Super Injunction's :- a for the rich law.

(22-05-2011 00:18 )MeTarzan Wrote:  

(21-05-2011 23:24 )admiral decker Wrote:  The only test to be applied on whether something should be published or not should be whether it's true. It seems very odd to me that the media are restrained from reporting things when it's the truth.

Reporter: "Do you beat your wife?"

Man in Public Life: "No, of course I don't beat my wife"

Newspaper Headline: "Man in Public Life denies beating his wife..."

That's the truth - but is it a fair report?

Never seen so many ridiculous over-simplifications and mock rage in one thread before.

Reporter - Did you have an affair with named woman ?

Man in public life - I'm getting a super injunction because I can afford it.

Newspaper Headline - Slag tries to blackmail family man..

Given all the clue's in today's papers etc, it seems only a complete numpty wouldnt know who the injunction is about. Maybee this will now put other secret shaggers of the super injunction path.

(22-05-2011 13:21 )SOCATOA Wrote:  Given all the clue's in today's papers etc, it seems only a complete numpty wouldnt know who the injunction is about. Maybee this will now put other secret shaggers of the super injunction path.

If that's the case, so what?

Why do you care who's shagging who?

Why is it anyones business but the people involved?

Its all out now. Well done John Hemming (Lib Dem MP invoking parliamentary privilege)

I saw in the Sunday Herald yesterday, that they had him on the front page - apparently super injunctions don't apply in Scottish law. Which can only be a good thing if this happens again in the future with someone else.

Are we allowed to mention his name now, I mean its all over Sky News.

Just seen it on the news, you've got the press rubbing their hands now that they think that can name him, but the injunction is still in place. So although the MP did spill the beans (shock horror! lol), I doubt this'll be the end of it.

I'll ask admin about discussing names.

(23-05-2011 07:02 )MeTarzan Wrote:  

(22-05-2011 13:21 )SOCATOA Wrote:  Given all the clue's in today's papers etc, it seems only a complete numpty wouldnt know who the injunction is about. Maybee this will now put other secret shaggers of the super injunction path.

If that's the case, so what?

Why do you care who's shagging who?

Why is it anyones business but the people involved?

When a sleazy banker is knobbing a work collegue instead of looking after my money i have every reason to get involved

So a certain ex Californian Governor may have 3 "love children" Phew, good job he didnt get to be president. There must be hundreds of cleaners at the White House