Home Politics & Debate
At The Mix, we want to make our services as helpful as we can. To do this, we’d love to ask you a few questions about you, your visit to The Mix and its impact. It should take only about 5-10 minutes to complete. Take this survey and get a chance at winning a £200 Amazon voucher​.
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Sign up here

Superinjunctions

2»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There are certain things that you are free to do in life, but doesnt mean you have the enshrined right to do it.

    Laws can either guarantee your rights, or curtail your freedoms.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ~
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So, if she has a right to sell her story, what about the rights of Ryan Giggs and his family, etc? Do they not have a right to privacy?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    jamelia wrote: »
    Again, you are assuming that all rights = legal rights. If that's so, we have no grounds to criticise the laws we currently have, which is a rather weird position to be in. Surely we want to be able to say that a certain law is a bad law? And why? Because it denies somebody something they have a (moral) right to.

    And besides, you probably do have an enshrined right to do that thing, if there is no legal prohibition on you doing it. I have a right to pick up a seashell from the beach, in the sense that there is no legal prohibition on my doing so. But this is getting too technical. There's no point continuing to argue with people who haven't understood the point I was making to begin with. Or even read my posts properly.

    NOpe, you have the freedom to pick up the sea shell. I could be wrong here, but doesnt the term say "freedom of speech" and not "right of speech".

    Rights guarantee you something, and freedoms well, you are free to do until it effects someone else.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    jamelia wrote: »
    Again, you are assuming that all rights = legal rights. If that's so, we have no grounds to criticise the laws we currently have, which is a rather weird position to be in. Surely we want to be able to say that a certain law is a bad law? And why? Because it denies somebody something they have a (moral) right to.

    And besides, you probably do have an enshrined right to do that thing, if there is no legal prohibition on you doing it. I have a right to pick up a seashell from the beach, in the sense that there is no legal prohibition on my doing so. But this is getting too technical. There's no point continuing to argue with people who haven't understood the point I was making to begin with. Or even read my posts properly.

    I understand and I completely agree. I have nothing else to add, but I didn't want you to feel like you were bashing your head against a brick wall :heart:.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There's a whole world between a bit of idle gossip with your mates down the pub and trying to extort £50,000 out of someone. Regardless of whether Giggs should have cheated on his wife, he has a reasonable expectation that a private relationship will remain private and a reasonable expectation that his private relationships will not be splashed all over the papers.

    As for whether or not he should "fuck around", well, it takes two to tango and one partner shouldn't be allowed to profiteer through a bit of revenge. Thomas is just as culpable for shagging a married man yet she can walk away with a sackload of cash? Sorry, but no.

    The cost of injunctions is irrelevant to the discussion. The only reason why most injunctions are granted in favour of rich people is that poor people are of insufficient public notoriety to need one. It's nothing to do with "protecting the rich"; Thomas could have told his wife in private at any time.

    I fully understand the point you are trying to make- that because Giggs cheated he loses all rights to privacy- and that is complete and utter bollocks. The freedom to speak does not trample over the obligation to keep the private private, the rights of Giggs and his family should be considered just as much as the rights of Thomas to engage in self-publicity. As I said before, the bloggers Belle du Jour and Girl with a One Track Mind both managed to carve out a successful story without revealing their own identity (indeed, both were "exposed" by newspapers) or the identity of their sexual partners. Keeping names anonymised doesn't stop you telling your story.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ~
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It wasn't a superinjunction btw- they are injunctions that mean you cannot even report that an injunction has been granted. It was just a bog-standard injunction in this case.

    You're the one who brought "well he shouldn't have shagged around should he" into the argument. In what way is that relevant? Giggs doesn't market his personal life and doesn't claim to be a moral standard-bearer, he didn't use corruption in favour of Thomas, he was simply a footballer who had an extra-marital affair. So why should he lose his right to privacy (the right to a private home life is also in the Human Rights Act and is as much a "right" as the right to free speech)?

    There's always a balancing act between the right to privacy and the right to free speech. The judges should continue to exercise discretion, as Mr Justice Eady so clearly did so. The law is working.

    Apropos of nothing, should we name rape victims? They're protected by the exact same law- their right to keep their names out of the paper trumps my right to name them on Twitter.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    This is one of the problems with the uproar on injunctions, people do seem to have not noticed that there are very good reasons for injunctions and those ones shouldn't be stopped.

    There is a little bit of me that is quite pleased to see Ryan Giggs end up in quite so much bother over this though. If he'd left it be, then for a day or two, he'd have been another cheating footballer. As it's turned out, he's a massive massove story.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The problem is that the talk about celebrity shagging is clouding the real issues here. The real issue is not the law- the law is correct- but there are big problems in the way that it is interpreted. Some of the injunctions being granted are disgraceful. The problem, of course, is that superinjunctions mean we cannot even know what the courts are doing.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8455841/A-mother-is-threatened-with-imprisonment-for-talking-to-her-MP.html

    That is an excellent example of what I mean. That is absolutely fucking disgraceful. Obviously I cannot and will not mention who it is and what the alleged actions are, I don't fancy being up on a contempt of court charge too, but if you look on Twitter you will probably find the answer very quickly. How the courts and police can do this to a pregnant woman and go to sleep at night is absolutely beyond me. The only thing I would add is that the woman has given birth safely and is now safe from the UK courts.

    This is the problem with the whole argument. Whilst innocent women are jailed for speaking to their own MP about their problems, the world wants to know which premier league footballer has kicked some slapper's back doors in. Someone's got their priorities wrong.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Obviously I cannot and will not mention who it is and what the alleged actions are, I don't fancy being up on a contempt of court charge too

    I am not sure you would be since John Hemmings has, some time ago, named her in the same way as he later named Giggs.

    Also published by parliament :

    http://services.parliament.uk/hansard/Commons/bydate/20110426/mainchamberdebates/part004.html
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8485742/Vicky-Haigh-flees-the-babysnatchers.html

    Also published by Christopher Booker in the Telegraph - though Artic Roll's point still stands
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru

    I read the details of that injunction, in the same way that many have. Basically disgraceful doesn't even begin to cover the offensive nature of this action. You wonder how some people sleep at night.
Sign In or Register to comment.