Bizarre UK Free Speech Ban Bars People From Telling Anyone -- Including Elected Officials & Lawyers -- About Potential Toxic Chemicals

from the say-what-now dept

Having just mentioned a bizarre superinjunction against free speech in the UK, I should also mention an even more bizarre "hyperinjunction" that was apparently issued by the UK High Court years ago, and goes so far as to ban people talking to their own elected officials or lawyers about a claim that "paint used in water tanks on passenger ships could break down and release potentially toxic chemicals." This hyperinjunction was apparently issued years ago, but is only coming to light now, because a Member of Parliament brought it up -- and he's protected by "parliamentary privilege" from getting into trouble for mentioning the otherwise secret order. Honestly, the details are pretty sketchy, but it appears that the court flat out ordered someone not to discuss a particular legal dispute concerning such toxic chemicals:
with "members of Parliament, journalists and lawyers", along with the US coastguard and any ship owners, and also forbids any speculation linking chemicals in the paint with the illness of any individuals.
I'm trying to figure out how this could possibly make sense in a country that has even marginal respect for free speech. Even worse, it appears that the individual that this hyperinjunction was targeted at later got in trouble for daring to talk to a lawyer about the case. What kind of country allows such a ridiculous suppression of basic rights?


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Poster, Apr 1st, 2011 @ 1:36am

    What kind of country allows such a ridiculous suppression of basic rights?

    England, duh.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Prince William, Apr 1st, 2011 @ 2:19am

    epic lulz.
    so england...that is those island people who pretend to be in the european union while going to war for america. totally wanting to be a big shot in brussel but not even have the Euro...drive on the left side of the street, consider a 2-party system a democracy, invade Lybia .... all that seems as absurd as calling their national football team "good".
    maybe free speech isnt made for the uk.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      drewmerc (profile), Apr 1st, 2011 @ 3:21am

      Re:

      we have a 3 party system labour, lib dems and conservatives
      (lib dems and conservatives are currently in power with a coalition goverment)

      just thought i'd fix your only error

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Schmoo, Apr 1st, 2011 @ 4:41am

        Re: Re:

        Can I interest you in a punch in the face?

        No? How about a kick in the bollocks, then?

        Still not interested? Well, hey, don't complain - you have a choice, and that choice is *the only thing that matters*. It's called democracy, you commie bastard!

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Numpty, Apr 1st, 2011 @ 4:56am

      Re:

      Just asking are you bias against England?.
      Firstly those Island people are made up of 3 mainland countries & N. Ireland.
      Secondly.. 2 Parties, yeah in 1950.
      Thirdly Britain & France was chomping at the bit to go into Lybia before the USA.
      Fourth that little group of islands of the coast of europe has more clout than Brussels.
      Finally UK built the biggest empire the world has ever had - it is plonkers such as yourself that will force us to do it again.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        abc gum, Apr 1st, 2011 @ 5:18am

        Re: Re:

        "UK built the biggest empire the world has ever had "

        Shhhhh - there is a SuperInjunction which stops everyone from talking about it.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      vivaelamor (profile), Apr 1st, 2011 @ 5:41am

      Re:

      "so england...that is those island people

      maybe free speech isnt made for the uk."


      Point of note, England and the UK aren't interchangeable terms. It's like confusing Texas and the USA.

      You might also want to read about John Milton, John Locke and John Stuart Mill. Note which country they were from.

      I hate nationalism, but the reverse is bad too.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 1st, 2011 @ 7:01am

        Re: Re:

        "England and the UK aren't interchangeable terms. It's like confusing Texas and the USA."

        You mean the US is not a part of TEXAS?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), Apr 1st, 2011 @ 2:33am

    George Orwell was close

    It must be "All speech is free, but some speech is more free than others."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), Apr 1st, 2011 @ 2:37am

    Also:

    This is yet another prime example of how much various governments fear their citizens. Unfortunately, they grant themselves the power to "wish" their possible problems "into the field." Until that power is stripped from them, the haze surrounding these governments (and their patrons) becomes more and more opaque.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), Apr 1st, 2011 @ 3:22am

    That's where you're going wrong you see.....

    I'm trying to figure out how this could possibly make sense in a country that has even marginal respect for free speech.

    You're mistaking the UK for a country that has even a marginal respect for free speech. We turned into a police state some time ago and didn't bother to tell anyone including the residents.
    What kind of country allows such a ridiculous suppression of basic rights?

    What, like the right to remain silent when arrested?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Chris in Utah (profile), Apr 1st, 2011 @ 3:53am

    The type of country that paints there walls with death apparently.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    vadim (profile), Apr 1st, 2011 @ 3:53am

    Re: Superinjunction

    April Foul's Day?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    abc gum, Apr 1st, 2011 @ 4:55am

    Could it be a plan hatched by the health industrial complex in order to maximize profits. It's simply good for business, what are you - some kind of terrorist?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Call me Al, Apr 1st, 2011 @ 5:18am

    As mentioned in the linked article ""This is the development of privacy law through the courts as opposed to Parliament legislating on it. It is deeply concerning, and undermines freedom of speech."

    The judges in the UK are a breed apart from everyone else. Some of the things they come up with are just mind boggling and to anyone else would seem completely ridiculous.

    Hopefully Parliament will step in and do something about this. That the guy couldn't talk to an MP or even a lawyer means that he had no right to recourse at all which is just not right in a supposedly free society.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Greg G (profile), Apr 1st, 2011 @ 6:21am

    Let's get it over with.

    I'm issuing a super-duper-ultra-hyper-radical-extreme-triple dog dare-injunction. Effective globally, covering everything.

    There, now if you speak at all, you owe me all of your income for life, and for 100 years after you assume room temperature, just in case you're worth more dead than alive.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Schmoo, Apr 1st, 2011 @ 7:36am

      Re:

      I regret to inform you that I was granted an injunction against injunctions of this nature just yesterday, and that in accordance with the terms of my injunction, your death is now mandated as restitution. I hope you enjoyed your time here, and that this unfortunate circumstance has not tainted your impression of our wonderfully sensible legal system.

      Lots of love,
      Lawyers.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Greg G (profile), Apr 1st, 2011 @ 11:29am

        Re: Re:

        Dear Lawyers,

        You forgot to magnify the fine print in order to read the disclaimer, which is typed in a font size of .0000000069. It reads as follows:

        This injunction overrides, supersedes, and makes null & void all previous and future injunctions that seek to render this injunctions null & void. Any attempt to do so shall result in the foreheads of any person(s) involved being flopped with copious amounts of phallus.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 1st, 2011 @ 6:28am

    In these cases the internet is just wonderful.

    They can block it inside the U.K. but the rest of the world doesn't need to follow that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Mike42 (profile), Apr 1st, 2011 @ 7:40am

    Just remember...

    The US rebelled from England for a lack of rights.
    Then we created a Constitution to protect our rights.
    And we have since been modeling our laws after England and the UK, slowly eroding those rights.

    Makes sense, right?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 1st, 2011 @ 7:42am

    "What kind of country allows such a ridiculous suppression of basic rights?"

    A country ruled by the rich clown with a metal hat.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    mike allen (profile), Apr 1st, 2011 @ 8:04am

    The company conxerned is HEMPLE a paint manufacturer I cant get much more information like whose ships have this paint but I understand the ministry of defence stopped using their products years ago. link may help
    http://cryptome.org/0003/hempel-toxic.pdf

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anon, Apr 1st, 2011 @ 10:52am

    Check out.... John Harris, the illusion on YouTube. & also just type in freeman wins court case on YouTube. Or also type in google the word freeman. ..... What do you think?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anon, Apr 1st, 2011 @ 10:56am

    Sorry not 'freeman wins court case' instead 'freeman council tax' (2nd clip down)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    hmm (profile), Apr 1st, 2011 @ 10:58am

    barbara strikes again..

    don't speak of this to anyone.... (said to a small group of people huddled in an office/courtroom somewhere)...

    tada!!! hundreds of MILLIONS of people suddenly read about it across the entire planet!!!!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    darryl, Apr 2nd, 2011 @ 5:49am

    nothing new here - again.

    toxic ship anti-fouling paints used in shipping has been banned world wide for over 20 years particularly lead and arsnic based paints.

    massive - massive fines and bans are given if you are caught using toxic paints in shipping.

    ships are regularly tested and checked when entering new countries.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Gordon (profile), Apr 2nd, 2011 @ 10:08am

      Re: nothing new here - again.

      Well Darryl,

      The article isn't talking about the problems with using toxic paints in shipping is it?

      You've failed to read and truly comprehend what exactly was said here - again.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    mhenriday (profile), Apr 2nd, 2011 @ 6:50am

    «What kind of country allows such a ridiculous suppression of basic rights?»

    A country whose leadership is, along with counterparts in other lands, in the process of bombing people in other lands in accordance with a «responsibility to protect» them. «Difficile est saturam non scribere....»

    Henri

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    okwhen (profile), Apr 2nd, 2011 @ 7:52am

    Corrupt Governments

    America is no different. Under the USA Patriot Act people are taken without legal representation, without being charged, etc and even worst if you fit their criteria for rendition. If any government or ruling powers are above the laws set forth for their citizens, then all laws are null and void regardless of circumstances. This is exactly why the majority of ruling powers are illegal under there own laws. However, greed, power hungry, etc are allowed to rule the world under the preconceived notion some will rub off on them so they can become greedy, above the law, bastards also.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    drew (profile), Apr 3rd, 2011 @ 1:11pm

    re: what kind of a country

    the same kind that tried to make it ok to imprison someone for up to 90 days without trial or even notice of the crime they were alleged to have commited.
    Oh yes, and the same kind of country that allows ludicrous libel tourism for works not even published in the uk.
    Oh yes, and the same country that still thinks copying a cd to your hard-drive is a crime: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8422308/HiFi-manufactures-advert-encouraged-people-to-bre ak-the-law.html
    Oh yes, and the same kind that, post Digital Economy act, makes you liable for the actions of users of your wifi spot.
    In short, one run by idiots who legislate on headlines and judges who make case law in ignorance.
    My country.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This