Fearless as ever I reveal all about those superinjunctions

Like many of you there is nothing I like more than finding out from my daily quality newspaper that a tabloid newspaper has – the day previous – published some tedious gossip about people I’ve never heard of. But this harmless pleasure that gives work to literally journalists at quality newspapers, by reading the tabloid newspapers and then republishing the stories with an ironic spin, has been under threat due to the superinjunctions. With the livelihoods of the entire G2 team at The Guardian under threat something has to be done. Fortunately, I have been able to acquire copies of the superinjunctions by having a look at the rumours on the internet and after taking legal advice from myself am prepared to publish and damn the consequences.

So, first, [redacted] a well known actor has [redacted] after it was discovered that [redacted] has [redacted] with [redacted] who, much to the surprise of most people, had already [redacted] with [redacted].[redacted] was awarded the superinjunction to protect [redacted] from embarrassment, and to protect his commercial agreements with [redacted].

Second, [redacted] a footballer, was awarded a superinjunction in relation to allegations that he [redacted] with [redacted] a former [redacted] who [redacted] with [redacted]. [redacted] is [redacted] with young [redacted] and the superinjunction was granted to protect [redacted] and commercial interests with [redacted]. This has not, of course, stopped fans of [redacted], [redacted], [redacted] and [redacted] rivals of [redacted] – for whom [redacted] plays – from starting chants about [redacted] and [redacted] and posting inappropriate jokes on fan websites usually based around bad puns.

Third, [redacted] a well known actor in [redacted] and soon to appear in [redacted], has a superinjunction after stories about a relationship with [redacted, a [redacted]. The actor is [redacted] to [redacted] and has [redacted] and makes great play in his public utterances that he is [redacted]. In order to protect [redacted] the superinjunction was granted – but one newspaper [redacted] attempted to circumvent the superinjunction by [redacted] at the end of a [redacted] and referring to [redacted] and [redacted] which had both featured [redacted] at an earlier point of his career.

Fourth, [redacted] a well known [redacted] had a superinjunction taken out because [redacted] had a relationship with [redacted, [redacted]’s [redacted]. The relationship took place at [redacted] when [redacted] was [redacted], although [redacted] was dropped from the [redacted] the following year, for reasons that have never been properly explained. The story was due to break during [redacted], when [redacted] was going to [redacted] and there was a risk that this might detrimentally affect [redacted] – but luckily [redacted] managed to keep the story quiet and [redacted] [redacted] which was great news for all supporters of [redacted]. The story though seems to have had a really bad impact on [redacted]’s career and he is now [redacted].

Fifth, internet rumours that [redacted] had a superinjuncion in relation to [redacted] with [redacted], the most boring member of the [redacted][redacted] were dismissed by [redacted] who has threatened legal action againt internet commenters that have suggested otherwise. The likelihood is of course that [redacted] was [redacted] his [redacted] at the time the alleged incident took place given that this was what [redacted] did when [redacted] [redacted] as he famously revealed in [redacted].

This fifth story demonstrates one of the ironic things about superinjunctions. As well as [redacted], [redacted] and [redacted] might not even have a superinjunction but due to the way these things work the media is not at liberty to publish that a person has an injunction allowing the rumour-mongers to publish any old nonsense on the internet causing distress to people that have done nothing.

Meantime the English judges are purporting to give extra-territorial effect to their injunctions by pronouncing them against the world (and treating every download in ENgland as publication in England allowing them to found jurisdiction for proceedings for breach of the injunction and contempt against those from other countries writing for domestic audiences, using servers held in their own countries – although the legal consequence of this for the publisher in their own jurisdiction are non-existent). The fact that they don’t even apply in Scotland – and a Scottish paper could publish in an edition published and distributed up here, unless appropriate proceedings have been taken in Scotland – seems not to bother the judges. It is a pity that the cases involve [redacted] with other [redacted] or [redacted] with [redacted] and not more serious matters – for it would be a useful reminder to the parties and to the English courts if one of the Scottish papers decided to publish the name of the claimant.

Anyhow, I’m off for my own superinjuncion now. After I was caught watching [redacted] on daytime television I fear my reputation will be diminished if the story gets out.

About loveandgarbage

I watch the telly and read when not doing law stuff and plugging my decade and a half old unwatched Edinburgh fringe show.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Fearless as ever I reveal all about those superinjunctions

  1. RichHL says:

    I laughed until my [redacted] fell off.

  2. [redacted] says:

    Watch it, you’re on thin ice.

    [name and e-mail address edited by the blogger]

  3. Jed Bartlet says:

    I was actually quite surprised to hear about [redacted]. Not [redacted] and [redacted]. I would kind of expect it from them. But [redacted]?

  4. Korhomme says:

    [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted]

  5. Pingback: Superinjunction latest: Big Ears speaks exclusively to the Toy Town Mail | Love and Garbage – some commonplace musings

  6. Until I read the Twitter barrage, I would never have believed that [redacted] would have been found in a [redacted] with [redacted] under the influence of [redacted]!

    Let’s hope none of our Scottish judges start to follow the rulings of Mr Justice [redacted] sitting in the [redacted] Court!

  7. David Farrer says:

    Truly shocking. I never realised that those kinds of things went on in this day and age.


    Disgusted of [redacted]

  8. ruthl says:

    Damn, I was going to tell you all about what [redacted] did with [redacted] but can’t now because [redacted] took out a superinjunction to prevent [redacted] knowing about [redacted] who has, coincidentally, taken out another superinjunction to stop [redacted] blowing the whistle.

  9. Pingback: What now for contemptuous tweeting and media innuendo in the privacy injunction saga? – Judith Townend « Inforrm's Blog

  10. Pingback: Why I revealed all about those superinjunctions | Love and Garbage – some commonplace musings

  11. Pingback: Don’t say I didn’t tell you so – superinjunctions, anonymised injunctions and Scotland | Love and Garbage – some commonplace musings

Leave a Reply to [redacted] Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s