So who do you think it is?

in reality, all of this has been a total load of old bollocks

So who do you think has NDAs in their DNA?

Ashley
1
14%
Branson
1
14%
Green
5
71%
Sorrell
0
No votes
Sugar
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 7

User avatar
The Prof
Composing a revolutionary symphony
Posts: 45263
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 18:32
Location: A Metropolis of Discontent

Re: So who do you think it is?

Postby The Prof » 29 Oct 2018, 15:51

He's somewhere between William Hague and Thatcher. And that's not a pretty sight.
The argument we seem to be having is that we can't be happy that rich people can buy the silence of victims.
Yomp seems to have adopted his bull-in-a-china-shop role in trying to inform us that it's legal. Which we all know.

User avatar
Toby
Arsehole all Erect
Posts: 23585
Joined: 28 Jul 2003, 23:13
Contact:

Re: So who do you think it is?

Postby Toby » 29 Oct 2018, 16:17

It is all very well arguing the moral position, but the fact is that something enshrined in law must have arisen from situations where it made sense to enact it. Laws don't just appear out of thin air.

Edit - I believe that this is do with the directive in the European Convention on Human Rights on the right to privacy which was integrated into the Human rights act.

It is perhaps an example of how European top down laws clash with English common law, although I will admit my knowledge goes no further.

User avatar
The Prof
Composing a revolutionary symphony
Posts: 45263
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 18:32
Location: A Metropolis of Discontent

Re: So who do you think it is?

Postby The Prof » 29 Oct 2018, 19:08

I’m sure there’s plenty on the internet about the history of injunctions in the UK, but they were going on long before the European Court of Human Rights.

User avatar
Toby
Arsehole all Erect
Posts: 23585
Joined: 28 Jul 2003, 23:13
Contact:

Re: So who do you think it is

Postby Toby » 29 Oct 2018, 19:20

It seems unusual then that super-injunctions started appearing in the latter half of the noughties. This would seem to confirm that they are a very recent thing.

User avatar
yomptepi
BCB thumbscrew of Justice
Posts: 35660
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 17:57
Location: well

Re: So who do you think it is

Postby yomptepi » 29 Oct 2018, 22:28

Toby wrote:It seems unusual then that super-injunctions started appearing in the latter half of the noughties. This would seem to confirm that they are a very recent thing.


The Giggs case was the first one. They are very recent.
Privacy law has become a knotted and poisonous thing. You cannot let political convenience undermine the individuals right to privacy. Of course all the pious, moralising "experts" here are well aware that the law is an expensive and exclusive product. Your average man could never even dream of trying to get such a complicated mechanism as a super injunction. They cost a fortune. And that is why only the very rich get to avail themselves of them. Unfortunately this does not make them immoral or illegal. After all, what price privacy? What price a reputation? And what if he is innocent ( unlikely , but possible) and he is just trying to protect himself? Isn't it his right to stop the press publishing material which may be lies? Are all the dim wit lefties here really going to say that because he is rich he has no right to justice? And why wold a poor man ever need such a thing as a super injunction? In what circumstances would a super injunction help any of us? As usual this has become a stick with which to beat the rich. I don't like Mr Green. He a nasty piece of work. he is greedy and grasping. He has no thought for those he asset strips, or whose pensions he raids with impunity. He is a vile and disgusting human being who takes what he likes and hides it under his wife's skirts, away from the law and the taxman. He is the lowest of the low. But he has the right to use the law to defend himself. And if you think he does not, then I would be interested to read the " thinking" behind that.
You don't like me...do you?

User avatar
yomptepi
BCB thumbscrew of Justice
Posts: 35660
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 17:57
Location: well

Re: So who do you think it is?

Postby yomptepi » 29 Oct 2018, 22:29

The Prof wrote:He's somewhere between William Hague and Thatcher. And that's not a pretty sight.
The argument we seem to be having is that we can't be happy that rich people can buy the silence of victims.
Yomp seems to have adopted his bull-in-a-china-shop role in trying to inform us that it's legal. Which we all know.


Thanks for that John. Very fair.

Yes.

Very fair.
You don't like me...do you?

User avatar
Diamond Dog
"Self Quoter" Extraordinaire.
Posts: 67357
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:04
Location: High On Poachers Hill

Re: So who do you think it is?

Postby Diamond Dog » 29 Oct 2018, 22:32

Toby wrote:It is all very well arguing the moral position, but the fact is that something enshrined in law must have arisen from situations where it made sense to enact it. Laws don't just appear out of thin air..


You'd think so.

The check and balance is Parliamentary Privilege.

You can't argue it's legally okay to have the right to seek to impose a gagging order, whilst saying it's not okay to invoke parliamentary privilege (Which is exactly what Yomp was implying). They are two (legal) sides of the same coin.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”
"Don't be seduced into thinking that which did not make a profit is without value"
"'Seize the moments as they fly, know to live and learn to die'."

User avatar
yomptepi
BCB thumbscrew of Justice
Posts: 35660
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 17:57
Location: well

Re: So who do you think it is?

Postby yomptepi » 29 Oct 2018, 22:42

Diamond Dog wrote:
Toby wrote:It is all very well arguing the moral position, but the fact is that something enshrined in law must have arisen from situations where it made sense to enact it. Laws don't just appear out of thin air..


You'd think so.

The check and balance is Parliamentary Privilege.

You can't argue it's legally okay to have the right to seek to impose a gagging order, whilst saying it's not okay to invoke parliamentary privilege (Which is exactly what Yomp was implying). They are two (legal) sides of the same coin.


That is NOT what I was saying. I have no problem with parliamentary privilege , although I do worry that that it is in the hands of a fuck wit like Peter fucking Hain, who clearly should have a taken a little advice himself before putting his hand in the chip pan. The problem is there is far too much vested interest in all the participants in this charade. The idea that Hain is doing this for any other reason than that he was coerced into doing it is quite frankly absurd. The man can barely breathe on his own. If they all make enough of a mess of this, then no one will be able to get Green into court and get to the bottom of it. And I think that is exactly what is happening.
You don't like me...do you?

User avatar
The Prof
Composing a revolutionary symphony
Posts: 45263
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 18:32
Location: A Metropolis of Discontent

Re: So who do you think it is?

Postby The Prof » 29 Oct 2018, 22:50

yomptepi wrote:
The Prof wrote:He's somewhere between William Hague and Thatcher. And that's not a pretty sight.
The argument we seem to be having is that we can't be happy that rich people can buy the silence of victims.
Yomp seems to have adopted his bull-in-a-china-shop role in trying to inform us that it's legal. Which we all know.


Thanks for that John. Very fair.

Yes.

Very fair.


I thought so.