More Movies Getting Eviscerated.....
Film, Media & TV0 min ago
Super-Injunctions
30 Answers
As this story reaches its final giddy heights, i think we are in danger of losing sight of the real issue here.
The problem with SI's is not when they are used by entertainment figures to cover up affairs - which surely teaches them after this, that you are better letting the media publish, and the story die a death, than try and suppress it and be made to look like a rich coniving cowardly fool, instead of just a rich faithless fool.
No, the issue is that if SI's are used to cover up activities by MP's, heads of public companies, lawyers, judges etc., then we do have a serious issue with the supression of free speech and the public interest.
Let's hope that does filter down among the frothy nonsense about a footballer who has behaved badly, and then compunded his actions by behaving shamefully as well.
Any ideas about protecting his wife and children from publicity will look rather pointless in the morning.
The problem with SI's is not when they are used by entertainment figures to cover up affairs - which surely teaches them after this, that you are better letting the media publish, and the story die a death, than try and suppress it and be made to look like a rich coniving cowardly fool, instead of just a rich faithless fool.
No, the issue is that if SI's are used to cover up activities by MP's, heads of public companies, lawyers, judges etc., then we do have a serious issue with the supression of free speech and the public interest.
Let's hope that does filter down among the frothy nonsense about a footballer who has behaved badly, and then compunded his actions by behaving shamefully as well.
Any ideas about protecting his wife and children from publicity will look rather pointless in the morning.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by andy-hughes. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Sqad I think I was being simplistic. What I was trying to say is that these injunctions cover many things not just infidelities and if we erode our freedom of speech how long before we live in Stalins Russia etc (yes I know a bit extreme)
The basic defense seems to be don't publish, think of the wife, think of the children, did the very famous footballer think of either when he was being unfaithful? If you stick your "head" in the Lions mouth sooner or later it will clamp its jaws.
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.... mumble mumble more cliches mumble
The basic defense seems to be don't publish, think of the wife, think of the children, did the very famous footballer think of either when he was being unfaithful? If you stick your "head" in the Lions mouth sooner or later it will clamp its jaws.
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.... mumble mumble more cliches mumble
Davethedog, there's still an argument that the kids shouldn't have to pay the price for their parents' stupidity. It's like after a divorce - the kids go where is best for them, not necessarily to the best-behaved parent.
The judiciary can't overrule parliamentary privilege but as someone pointed out to the MP in this case, if he doesn't like the law it's his job to change it - not to flout it. The judges apply the laws made by MPs.
The judiciary can't overrule parliamentary privilege but as someone pointed out to the MP in this case, if he doesn't like the law it's his job to change it - not to flout it. The judges apply the laws made by MPs.
