superinjunctions: in whose interest?

[mint]

I have started this new thread further to my rather tongue-in-cheek one about Fred Goodwin.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1388682/Sir-Fred-Goodwin-injunction-RBS-chiefs-sexual-relationship-eve-45bn-collapse.html

There now seems to be a tussle between parliamentarians and judges as to which of them should be able to uphold the validity of these superinjunctions.

I suppose it boils down to this:

Whom do you trust more; the legislature or the judiciary?

To me, it's a fascinating and important contest so I apologise in advance if this topic bores you to tears.

[woolybanana]

What consenting adults do to each other in private is really of no interest but if that could be of public relevance, then it should not be protected. The nub is to define public relevance

[mint]

Well, then Wools, if it WERE in the public interest to know, would you rather judges do not grant these gagging orders or would you have MPs or Lords using parliamentary privilege to spill the beans?

[woolybanana]

The matters so far covered by the injunctions are not worthy of court business and should not be covered, as far as I can see. but then, what should? Maybe business secrets that have no public interest?

 

[Dog]

The press should be able to print everything they want - let the readers decide what they want to read.

The recent furore over super injunctions only hides the multitude of D notices served on the press by the government to hide their sins, reinforce propaganda and divert attention from how to change the rotten corrupt establishment.

Try Googling          Birkenhead lawful rebellion       you won't find it mentioned on UK TV or in the press.

 

[mint]

Wools, you are so right.  Imagine some worthy old f**t of a judge looking at the details of some testosterone-fueled, muscle-bound, thick-headed but thin-skinned celebrity's peccadillo and having to say whether, in his considered opinion, a super injuction should be granted.

Monty Python couldn't have thought this one up!

Ah, Dog.....er...nice to see you back amongst us!  Where would we all be if you weren't about to help keep our feet on the ground?

[fisherman]

If the person concerned uses the press for their own ends to boost their popularity, career and earning them they should be fair game when they slip up. They should not have the right to manipulate the press to their own ends.

However if the person concerned does not court such publicity them I think it fair that their private life remains private.

Which funny enough would probably mean that good old Fred G, the bogey man the politicians like to use to deflect blame from themselves should be covered by an injunction.

As regards to the subject of the post. They are all part of the establishment, public servants who are now public rulers, they will end up with a stale mate neither side wanting to rock the boat too much with the risk of loosing some of their power.

Unfortunately as far as the political establishment is concerned I have gone beyond cynicism and probably moved on to complete loathing.

[mint]

Fisherman, I have enjoyed reading your post.

I am not yet at your state of cynicism of the political establishment but I think I am probably heading that way in rapid fashion.

[Hoddy]

Part of the problem seems to me to be that the judge who grants these things may not be in possession of all the facts or that the facts may change.

I would like to know if the lover of a certain banker had her two promotions before or after the injunctions were granted.

 

Hoddy

[mint]

Might find out about those promotions soon enough, Hoddy

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8527392/Sir-Fred-Goodwins-lover-promoted-twice.html

[Hoddy]

I'd read that Sweets - that is what made me wonder about the dates.

As you say we shall probably find out soon.

 

Hoddy

[just john]

Did anyone not know it was Giggsy?[Www]

[cooperlola]

[quote user="just john "]Did anyone not know it was Giggsy?[Www][/quote]Who's Giggsy?  Who cares?

When it's businessmen or politicians who decide our futures and make decisions about our lives, it matters.  Otherwise (assuming this Giggsy person isn't one such) who gives a......?

[just john]

Well, he's a player at Man U, who had tried to cover up an affair, interestingly many female supporters when asked how it would affect their support, said 'not at all, he'd have to do much worse'; does this remind you of the female mindset about anyone else in the news recently?

[Clarkkent]

The real problem here, surely, is that a certain media tycoon decided (a) that sex sells, and (b) that people are jealous of success. Combine these two things and you are onto a winner.

What the redtops (and the bluetops) have done is to identify people who are successful and then hold their non-public behaviour up to ridicule. What people do with the contents of their underwear in the privacy of their own hotel room should not be the concern of anybody but it has now become the prurient fixation of the great unwashed and the disenchanted sometime middle classes.

Of all the aptitudes, abilities and personal characteristics required for successful performance of any role, chastity is the least important. The only case where exposure of someone's sexual meandering may be of interest is where individuals have set themselves on the moral highground - America television evangelists spring to mind.

What is in the public interest is not the same thing as interesting to the public. If we could re-engineer our attitudes to "celebrity" then these injunctions would be irrelevent.