(Not-super) injunction, and names

Emp_Fab

Ah.  Someone named him then ?

I suppose I was perhaps a tad naive in expecting everyone to be sensible.  Sorry.

HAL9000

If he shall not be named, is it...

Lord Voldemort?

Emp_Fab

Fecking ridiculous - it's even on the guy's Wikipedia page !!!

Freebird

Gassage said:

Fuengi said:

Do my Wow and Wisdom frets from the thread still count? 

I got 5 LOL's for my Hughie Green joke

Hughie who? I've never heard of him

robgilmo

Can someone please give me the basics here, I have no idea whats going on?

Freebird

Emp_Fab said:

Fecking ridiculous - it's even on the guy's Wikipedia page !!!

Trending on Twitter too. We're probably the only people in Britain who don't know who he is.

ICBM

robgilmo said:

Can someone please give me the basics here, I have no idea whats going on?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news

No need to even post the specific link...

proggy

Freebird said:

Gassage said:

Fuengi said:

Do my Wow and Wisdom frets from the thread still count? 

I got 5 LOL's for my Hughie Green joke

Hughie who? I've never heard of him

Would you open the box?

Freebird

proggy said:

Freebird said:

Gassage said:

Fuengi said:

Do my Wow and Wisdom frets from the thread still count? 

I got 5 LOL's for my Hughie Green joke

Hughie who? I've never heard of him

Would you open the box?

It depends what colour it is.

Emp_Fab

robgilmo said:

Can someone please give me the basics here, I have no idea whats going on?

Lord Voldemort has been groping and bullying women.  He got a super injunction because he didn't want Harry Potter to know, except Hagrid blurted it out and now everyone knows.

Jimbro66

Freebird said:

Emp_Fab said:

Fecking ridiculous - it's even on the guy's Wikipedia page !!!

Trending on Twitter too. We're probably the only people in Britain who don't know who he is alleged to be (but denies).

FTFY

Gagaryn

I appreciate the reasons for the site admins' caution, but I find this quite Orwellian.

The whole interweb, in fact the whole world is discussing 'a thing' and tFB is quivering in a corner.

This is bizarre.

proggy

Freebird said:

proggy said:

Freebird said:

Gassage said:

Fuengi said:

Do my Wow and Wisdom frets from the thread still count? 

I got 5 LOL's for my Hughie Green joke

Hughie who? I've never heard of him

Would you open the box?

It depends what colour it is.

It's a green hue.

Jimbro66

robgilmo said:

Can someone please give me the basics here, I have no idea whats going on?

Let the Daily Telegraph explain:

The Telegraph has spent the past eight months investigating allegations of bullying, intimidation and sexual harassment made against the businessman, and the lengths he has gone to to cover up the claims. However, on Tuesday this newspaper was prevented from revealing details of the non-disclosure deals by Sir Terence Etherton, the Master of the Rolls, the second most senior judge in England and Wales.

The intervention makes it illegal, outside Parliament or in reports of Parliamentary proceedings, to reveal the businessman’s identity or to identify the companies, as well as what he is accused of doing or how much he paid his alleged victims.

It was the latest twist in a legal fight which began in July, which saw the appeal court rule that the confidentiality of contracts was more important than freedom of speech.

It overturned a previous High Court ruling which found that publication of the allegations would be overwhelmingly in the public interest and would significantly contribute to debate in a democratic society.

NDAs were used to ensure the silence of witnesses but today Lord Peter Hayne used parliamentary privilege to name the businessman.

fandango

Gagaryn said:

I appreciate the reasons for the site admins' caution, but I find this quite Orwellian.

The whole interweb, in fact the whole world is discussing 'a thing' and tFB is quivering in a corner.

This is bizarre.

Ah yes .... How Bizarre, How Bizarre

digitalscream

Gagaryn said:

I appreciate the reasons for the site admins' caution, but I find this quite Orwellian.

The whole interweb, in fact the whole world is discussing 'a thing' and tFB is quivering in a corner.

This is bizarre.

Funny how you're happy to say that when you're not the one who has to deal with the legal implications of all the bullshit folk spout on here because they think they're immune. You're also not the one who has to assume the legal liability for said bullshit.

So, if you think you're so hard done to by this policy, you're welcome to piss off and discuss it on any of those other sites.

robgilmo

So , basically some dude was accused of sexual harassment and the courts said his identity should remain a secret? Is he guilty? If so fuck that, people need to know who this person is.

ArchtopDave

As far as I can see these days if someone is well enough known in a more global sense, then the UK Law only has a limited reach in the wider world. I seem to remember that, not long ago, a well known footballer succeeded in obtaining a similar injunction in the UK, but was identified because the injunction had no legal power in the States, and his ID got circulated on the internet starting in the USA.

 I'm sure everyone must have noticed that the current Preezeedent of the States has run out of luck with his non disclosure agreements with various ladies.

TTony

digitalscream said:

Gagaryn said:

I appreciate the reasons for the site admins' caution, but I find this quite Orwellian.

The whole interweb, in fact the whole world is discussing 'a thing' and tFB is quivering in a corner.

This is bizarre.

Funny how you're happy to say that when you're not the one who has to deal with the legal implications of all the bullshit folk spout on here because they think they're immune. You're also not the one who has to assume the legal liability for said bullshit.

So, if you think you're so hard done to by this policy, you're welcome to piss off and discuss it on any of those other sites.

+1

Yes, he's been named on the BBC website.  But named very carefully, factually and objectively.

There is no judgemental comment in that article.

Contrast that to the comment that we know will be posted here.  Which be judgemental to the point that it would be defamatory with or without the context of the injunction.  IE, put the whole injunction thing aside, people would take the facts as reported on the BBC website, and extend those into a load of comments that would be actionable.  That - arguably - already happened in the threads before Lee removed them.

Now, *you* may want to incur the costs and hassles of attempting to defend yourself against some legal actions, but we really don't want that hassle in defending ourselves or the forum.  We wouldn't even bother defending you and will quite happily divulge any and all records of your identities as soon as requested.  

If you think that your voice will add that little bit extra value to freedom of speech, then set up your own website and do it there.

Gagaryn

digitalscream said:

Gagaryn said:

I appreciate the reasons for the site admins' caution, but I find this quite Orwellian.

The whole interweb, in fact the whole world is discussing 'a thing' and tFB is quivering in a corner.

This is bizarre.

Funny how you're happy to say that when you're not the one who has to deal with the legal implications of all the bullshit folk spout on here because they think they're immune. You're also not the one who has to assume the legal liability for said bullshit.

So, if you think you're so hard done to by this policy, you're welcome to piss off and discuss it on any of those other sites.

That is uncalled for.

I noted that I appreciate your caution. 

Really no need to resort to telling people to piss off. That is an overreaction.