Comments on: Super injunction names: 6 national newspaper stories that flouted the injunction to reveal all http://www.malcolmcoles.co.uk/blog/super-injunction-names/ Where to find Malcolm Coles, reviews, and tips on how to do things I couldn't do. Mon, 25 Mar 2013 16:22:31 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: valm http://www.malcolmcoles.co.uk/blog/super-injunction-names/#comment-28204 valm Mon, 23 May 2011 06:13:36 +0000 http://www.malcolmcoles.co.uk/blog/?p=6082#comment-28204 I agree .... super injunctions are being used by the wrong people for the wrong purpose. But also, tabloids and magazines print headlines and stories which are deliberately misleading or downright lies just to make sales. If someone lives in the public eye, part of that means their private lives become more public than they would like. Interestingly, if these super injunction seekers were concerned about the upset to their families if they were caught out cheating, why did they risk it? They have brought this on themselves. I agree .... super injunctions are being used by the wrong people for the wrong purpose. But also, tabloids and magazines print headlines and stories which are deliberately misleading or downright lies just to make sales.
If someone lives in the public eye, part of that means their private lives become more public than they would like.
Interestingly, if these super injunction seekers were concerned about the upset to their families if they were caught out cheating, why did they risk it? They have brought this on themselves.

]]> By: Jules http://www.malcolmcoles.co.uk/blog/super-injunction-names/#comment-28128 Jules Thu, 19 May 2011 14:37:58 +0000 http://www.malcolmcoles.co.uk/blog/?p=6082#comment-28128 I can think of only one set of grounds for 'super injunctions' and that is where there are issues of national security involved. That said, we have a situation where newspapers are (it seems) free to print whatever they please, regardless of whether the story they print is true or not - yes there are libel laws, but it is beyond the funds and ability of most people to take papers to court. I beleive in freedome of speach BUT I think that papers and publishers should have an onus on them to verify stories and have proof about the stories they are printing before they go to print. They also publish that proof or, if they need to protect a 'source', the individual concerned (or an independent panel bound by law to silence if the story checks out) should have the right to see the evidence on which the story is based. If the story is proven groundless, there should be no protection for the source of the inforamtion If a salcious story is printed that has no foundation in truth and the publisher has not met basic standards of verifying a story (i.e more than just because someone told them so), then there should be automatic damages payouts that are paid without recourse to courts but ruled on by an adjudication board. A practice like this would concentrate the mind of publishers to make sure that journalists are sure of their facts, and do away with the blight of lazy journalism. If the papers have been supplied with fabricated evidence it would be up to the papers to go and sue the individuals who supplied them with the false story. If the papers or magazines want to print gossip, then print gossip - but make it absolubtely clear that the story they are printing IS only gossip, based on an individuals say so, and that they have no hard evidence to back the story up. Our basic freedoms are being steadily eroded, and it is time for people to stand up and say 'enough'. Super injunctions are just another manifestation of the erosion or our freedoms in UK society. We should all be free to print or say what we like, but we should also have some responsibility in law to make sure that what we print is accurate or true if we are presenting it as 'The Truth'. I can think of only one set of grounds for 'super injunctions' and that is where there are issues of national security involved.

That said, we have a situation where newspapers are (it seems) free to print whatever they please, regardless of whether the story they print is true or not - yes there are libel laws, but it is beyond the funds and ability of most people to take papers to court.

I beleive in freedome of speach BUT I think that papers and publishers should have an onus on them to verify stories and have proof about the stories they are printing before they go to print. They also publish that proof or, if they need to protect a 'source', the individual concerned (or an independent panel bound by law to silence if the story checks out) should have the right to see the evidence on which the story is based. If the story is proven groundless, there should be no protection for the source of the inforamtion

If a salcious story is printed that has no foundation in truth and the publisher has not met basic standards of verifying a story (i.e more than just because someone told them so), then there should be automatic damages payouts that are paid without recourse to courts but ruled on by an adjudication board.

A practice like this would concentrate the mind of publishers to make sure that journalists are sure of their facts, and do away with the blight of lazy journalism. If the papers have been supplied with fabricated evidence it would be up to the papers to go and sue the individuals who supplied them with the false story.

If the papers or magazines want to print gossip, then print gossip - but make it absolubtely clear that the story they are printing IS only gossip, based on an individuals say so, and that they have no hard evidence to back the story up.

Our basic freedoms are being steadily eroded, and it is time for people to stand up and say 'enough'. Super injunctions are just another manifestation of the erosion or our freedoms in UK society. We should all be free to print or say what we like, but we should also have some responsibility in law to make sure that what we print is accurate or true if we are presenting it as 'The Truth'.

]]> By: alex http://www.malcolmcoles.co.uk/blog/super-injunction-names/#comment-26100 alex Thu, 12 May 2011 10:38:46 +0000 http://www.malcolmcoles.co.uk/blog/?p=6082#comment-26100 Don't forget this story in the [readcted!], randomly giving a [celebrity] quote at the start, then jumping off to talk about superinjunctions. [redacted, sorry!] Redact as you see fit ;-) Then of course yesterday Guido Fawkes happens to tweet a random load of names, and today the Daily Mail helpfully confirms them to be the subject of superinjunctions. Did the Daily Mail cross the line here? After all, until they published their story, they were just a random bunch of names. Now we all know they were not. Perhaps this is the way to get round these things in the future. Have several sources all publishing snippets which in themselves do not give the game away, but taken together the story can be deduced. Don't forget this story in the [readcted!], randomly giving a [celebrity] quote at the start, then jumping off to talk about superinjunctions.

[redacted, sorry!]

Redact as you see fit ;-)

Then of course yesterday Guido Fawkes happens to tweet a random load of names, and today the Daily Mail helpfully confirms them to be the subject of superinjunctions. Did the Daily Mail cross the line here? After all, until they published their story, they were just a random bunch of names. Now we all know they were not.

Perhaps this is the way to get round these things in the future. Have several sources all publishing snippets which in themselves do not give the game away, but taken together the story can be deduced.

]]> By: Lee http://www.malcolmcoles.co.uk/blog/super-injunction-names/#comment-25581 Lee Wed, 11 May 2011 13:28:05 +0000 http://www.malcolmcoles.co.uk/blog/?p=6082#comment-25581 So, what do we know? Well, without naming names, and to be honest I've not heard of several of the so-called 'celebrities' this is what I've discovered. A famous [redacted by malcolm so as not to be sued!!] likes to wear gimp masks and pays prostitutes to humiliate him. A [redacted] had an affair with a journalist. She became pregnant and he ended up paying child support for several years before finding out that he wasn't the father. The father is actually a [redacted] who had a big fall-out with another [redacted] several years ago...because he was sharing the same lover as the other two. [redacted] pays prostitutes so that he can whip them. Another [redacted] paid a prostitute to ram a dildo up his arse. You couldn't make it up. So, what do we know? Well, without naming names, and to be honest I've not heard of several of the so-called 'celebrities' this is what I've discovered.

A famous [redacted by malcolm so as not to be sued!!] likes to wear gimp masks and pays prostitutes to humiliate him.

A [redacted] had an affair with a journalist. She became pregnant and he ended up paying child support for several years before finding out that he wasn't the father. The father is actually a [redacted] who had a big fall-out with another [redacted] several years ago...because he was sharing the same lover as the other two.

[redacted] pays prostitutes so that he can whip them.

Another [redacted] paid a prostitute to ram a dildo up his arse.

You couldn't make it up.

]]>