Neuberger report says media should get prior warning of injunctions

  • Print
  • Comments (4)

Readers' comments (4)

  • I couldn't give a damn about which footballer / actor / actress / B, C, D or E-Grade Celebrity is or isn't doing something to someone else that they ought not to be, but what else might be being covered up that IS in the public interest???
    I believe that Super-injunctions are an absolute abuse of status and money and should be legislated out of existence. Similarly, the "right" of someone to be informed of a possible controversial media story about them is also beyond the realm of logic.
    If all else fails, turn to the courts .... or as one of my lecturers said to us many years ago ...."Never do, act, say or write anything you may later have to preface with the words 'Your Honour'".

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Is it possible that a member of the judiciary could be held in contempt of the HoC when they criticise members for mentioning the subjects of such injunctions AND wasn't it Schillings who warned MP's not to discuss thier client in the HoC

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Wouldn't it be be wonderful if for once the Judiciary, the legal profession, the media and the great British public (of which I am one) finally understood the power of social media. Those of us with IP addresses outside UK can blather on to our heart's content about who does what to whom in the UK with little or no practical (or legal) consequence. To leave matters as they are is an abuse of process and plain dumb. However according to the BBC to date there have only been 2 applications for this type of injunction. Yes, we should all be outraged that anyone (famous or infamous) should seek such protection but thankfully there does not appear to have been an outbreak of legal 'interference'.Anyway there is no substitute for gossip at the watercooler and who was it who said to be told something in confience means that you can only tell one other person at a time!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Ashley Balls' comment surely misses an important point. As a member of the great British public, the law requires him to respect the private and family life of everyone. What are the limits which that respect involves? Should that law be observed, never mind enforced? Should it be changed? Should the law require some people's private and family life to be respected and not others'? Or no one's? These are genuinely difficult questions, and it is to be hoped that one day they can be sorted out in a calmer atmosphere.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (4)