Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   

   The eejit (profile), Apr 27th, 2011 @ 3:40am

   
   

   Still, we have to give him (belated) props for admitting that he did it. Not like certain people who shall remain nameless for legal reasons.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   Parliamentary priviledge v super injunctions?

   

   ethorad (profile), Apr 27th, 2011 @ 4:48am

   
   

   One thing that puzzles me is MPs can mention these injunctions in parliament without sanction, since what they say in parliament is somehow protected (IANAL so I don't understand the intricacies). For example Trafigura dumping toxic waste in the Ivory Coast came out because an MP asked a question about it despite an injunction.
   
   So, why doesn't an MP simply ask a "question" once a month which lists all the new super-injunctions taken out? That would rapidly end the practice. Good luck to the celebrities in persuading parliament to end parliament's free speech priviledges!
   
   Going to email my MP tonight.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   Re: Parliamentary priviledge v super injunctions?

   

   The eejit (profile), Apr 27th, 2011 @ 5:12am

   
   

   That's mostly because Parliamentary Privilege exempts MPs from most criminal wrongdoing (up to a point, as the recent jailings of MPs for defrauding the Treasury have shown).

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Apr 27th, 2011 @ 7:08am

   
   

   The most interesting bit about this article is the unrelated "contra mundum" injunction that was issued last week, which is nothing short of amazing. A British judge declares the world gagged. The hubris is staggering.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Apr 27th, 2011 @ 7:10am

   
   

   Faster than a speeding censor
   More powerful than a law
   Able to leap tall rights in a single bound
   It's super-injunction!

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   

   Overcast (profile), Apr 27th, 2011 @ 7:36am

   
   

   He, Winston Smith, knew that Oceania had been in alliance with Eurasia as short a time as four years ago. But where did that knowledge exist? Only in his own consciousness, which in any case must soon be annihilated. And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed -if all records told the same tale -- then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past,' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.' And yet the past, though of its nature alterable, never had been altered. Whatever was true now was true from everlasting to everlasting. It was quite simple. All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory. 'Reality control', they called it: in Newspeak, 'doublethink'.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   Re:

   

   The eejit (profile), Apr 27th, 2011 @ 7:43am

   
   

   Yep, and the funniest thing is, most of the people in the know know exactly who it is. They shall remain nameless for family reasons (the superinjunction has nothing to do with it).

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   

   Steven (profile), Apr 27th, 2011 @ 8:43am

   
   

   I'm really surprised some site hasn't popped up yet that just reports on all these 'super injunctions'.
   
   Or has it...

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

9.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Apr 27th, 2011 @ 12:01pm

   
   

   #superinjunction on Twitter makes superinjunctions pointless.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment