Remotely attractive test cases ...
... and the seemingly congenital inability of British civil liberties campaigners to find them. The Trafigura case was a genuine issue of considerable public interest, where the superinjunction clearly impaired a sensible and necessary debate. But apparently the face of the superinjunction campaign is going to be a really murky, really squalid case with more than a hint of blackmail to it.
Why? I think two reasons. First, as with the NatWest Three in the US extradition treaty case, the public relations industry is involved. And second, the newspaper publishing industry wants to win a weak case, not a strong one, in order to set as wide a precedent as possible.
Roy Greenslade makes a similar point in the Guardian, where he implies that the Trafigura case is the only superinjunction that he knows about that isn't about someone's sex life. (But how would he expect to find out about any others when the whole point of a superinjunction is to quash reporting of its existence?)
ReplyDeleteBecause its a fairly open secret among well connected media folk. These things usually are.
ReplyDeleteBecause its a fairly open secret among well connected media folk.
ReplyDeleteThey don't even have to be that well-connected.
Jobbing bottom-rung hacks doing the kicking-out-time shift at tabloid filler generators like WENN have to know which of their celebrity subjects get stories put on the wire, which get spiked, and which go to the lawyers. Strictly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty, etc.
Oh yeah, I just meant that Roy Greenslade is a well connected media person so he's bound to know.
ReplyDeleteI would guess that anyone who works in the media probably knows, as does anyone who knows people who work in the media.
They don't know about the super-super injunctions though.
ReplyDeleteIt can't really be the face of a super-injunction campaign now that there is no more super-injunction. It's just a regular injunction now that the press can report that it exists.
ReplyDeleteOh Ryan, you're so naive. These are just the sacrificial injunctions that they're using to distract us from the super-super-injunctions. Now nobody will ever know about **** the future **** of ******* and his ******** with a common fishwife because they'll be too distracted by a footballer.
ReplyDeleteRyan is correct actually, I hadn't noticed this - "super-injunction" is a complete misnomer in the Imogen Thomas case, she's just subject to an ordinary injunction against publishing details of her affair. In related news, I'm not quite sure what she is hoping to "clear her name" of.
ReplyDeleteIsn't the obvious explanation that the press is interested in their rights respecting blackmailing sex scandals because that is what sells newspapers?
ReplyDeleteWell, we're being led to believe that she's a greedy slapper with some nasty friends. Her story is that she met him one May morning as she went to view her father's herd, she asked him if he'd seen her spotted cow, he offered to help find it and one thing led to another, only now he's denying it all and claiming that she's a greedy slapper. And if only we could know who he is, we'd know at once who to believe.
ReplyDeleteThe valuable thoughts you provided do help my research for our corporation, appreciate that.
ReplyDeletegrocery bags reusable | environmentally friendly bags | reusable bags | eco shopping bags | celebrity reusable bags | reusable tote | earth friendly shopping bags