The absurd situation we are in

The head of Her Majesty government, responsible for implementing the daily business of our Sovereign, cannot mention [the footballer we cannot name] in public – even though Cameron, like the rest of us, knows who he is.

Her Majesty’s personal representative in Parliament is forbidden by these ridiculous super injunctions. A salacious story which would have been forgotten about within a month has transpired into a constitutional issue.

I believe, and correct me if I am wrong, the Queen is the only person who can effectively name him and face no consequences.

And, yet, we still refer to Britain as one the most open, free and liberal societies in the world.

Read Full Post »

Guide to discussing superinjunctions

█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████

██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████

██████████████████████████████████████████████████████

████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████

The joys of living in a democracy, with a truly free press.

Read Full Post »

Parliament to debate a privacy law

I see David Davis has forwarded a motion for a debate on super injunction and a privacy law. It seems the government has welcomed the move, albeit rather timid. The Prime Minister feels it would be an appropriate arena for Parliament to express her views.

Question is though, will the MP (who has supposedly taken out a super injunction) make an appearance, or even, an intervention in the debate…

Read Full Post »

The death of super injunctions

Judges hold, allegedly, connotations that the tabloid press behave similar to feral wolves and must be tamed. ‘Celebrities’, who claim to represent some moral authority and superiority over the rest of society, silence the press – whenever their public image is threatened.

In a true free and democratic society all individuals are equal within the law and (more importantly) the press are truly free.

Is it right a █████████ can use their wealth to prevent the press from publishing extracts and allegations about a ███████████ and ██████████?; █████████, █████████, ███████████ and others should be ashamed of their behaviour.

Censorship is abhorrent and incompatible to a modern free press.

Majority of the allegations pertain to █████████, but imagine the implications if a super injunction was granted to halt a serious media investigation? How would the people become informed and protected?

Britain needs a ‘First Amendment’-esque Constitutional amendment or a privacy law, which strikes the correct balance. Currently, judges are interpreting or creating a legal narrative that is unjust and unfair to the press.

Read Full Post »