|
|||||||||||||||||
|
BS: Super Injunctions - Savilles pals
|
Share Thread
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Subject: BS: Super Injunctions - Savilles pals From: Silas Date: 29 Oct 12 - 07:14 AM Is there any way of finding out if there has been a rush on super injunctions in the wake of the savile revalations |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Super Injunctions - Savilles pals From: Musket Date: 29 Oct 12 - 08:09 AM The idea of super injunctions is that you are breaching them by asking how to gain the information..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Super Injunctions - Savilles pals From: Nigel Parsons Date: 29 Oct 12 - 08:20 AM How can you breach a super-injunction if you are unaware of its existence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Super Injunctions - Savilles pals From: Dave Hanson Date: 29 Oct 12 - 08:55 AM Garry Glitter has been arrested again, released on bail. Dave H |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Super Injunctions - Savilles pals From: Musket Date: 29 Oct 12 - 11:07 AM By remaining unaware of it, you are not breaching it. That's the whole idea. In the Ryan Giggs affair, a newspaper agency, possibly AP but I forget now, was advised that trying to find out if the rumour of a super injunction was true could be seen as being in contempt of it. Interesting world. If you try to disguise allegations of a criminal act, you cannot get an injunction unless previously charged and CPS decide not to run with it. However, the charge is public domain so getting one would be irrelevant. In short, nobody has asked a court to put a lid on criminal allegations, as you can't. Although, if you want to just read juicy shit regardless of truth, may I suggest The Daily M*ail? Stories about Saville will possibly be on the same page where they previously counted down the days till Emma Watson the actress turned 16, or the page the other week showing a 14 year old sunbathing, describing her legs.... it gets people in the mood to be outraged by celebrities getting their rocks off to the same pictures. |