The Attorney General for England and Wales, Dominic Grieve, now saying that he will prosecute people who “Tweet” the names of those who have taken out super injunctions.
This will no doubt be met by a chorus of “Bring it on” from many of those who see the internet as a legitimate weapon against the old order. They will, with some justification, see this as the Government and the judiciary yet again siding with the elite.
Grieve’s views are endorsed by David Allen Green, a media lawyer and (according to the BBC) an “expert on social media”. He points out that everyone who publishes the names of those hiding behind these injunctions are open to prosecution.
Get real!
The image of Ryan Giggs was one of a consummate professional sportsman and role model for youngsters. As with Tiger Woods, this image was intrinsic to his status in both the sport and its associated commercial enterprises. As such, it is without doubt, in the public interest to know whether this remains the case. There are quite a few who portray themselves in a manner which bestows a certain status, coupled with an ability to make a lot of money. They are more than happy to use the media to promote this image. It is a public image. And that’s the point.
When that public image is shown to be a lie, then the public should be told.
This is not about privacy.
I couldn’t care less what any of these self-important twats had for their breakfast. I don’t care what hand they use to wipe their arse. And I’m certainly not in the slightest bit interested where they go on holiday and whether they get their kit off on the beach.
However, when they achieve a prominence and wealth by dint of a societal belief in a self-proclaimed portrayal then that society needs to be told that it has been deceived.
The problem over people “tweeting” the names of such people is one that has been created by the courts. These super-injunctions should have been declared dead in the water. By not doing so, judges are telling us in no uncertain terms, that the rich can have their cake and eat it.
This, rather than any tabloid styled expose, is the reason people post the names on the internet.
As for the Attorney General’s idea of prosecuting thousands (and bear in mind if he goes down this road it will become millions) of people who live outside England and Wales is a much anticipated exercise in wasting public money.
Are we to see injunctions against newspapers in Scotland, Eire, France, and the USA et al?
He might be able to go after Twitter, but unless he has any ideas on how to close down all the other websites in the world he’s doing what politicians do – talking spam. Unhelpful. Unwanted. And ultimately useless. Only to be believed by the gullible. And maybe the celebrity elite who think they can hide behind ludicrous judgements made in the now, unfortunately, discredited English courts.
This will no doubt be met by a chorus of “Bring it on” from many of those who see the internet as a legitimate weapon against the old order. They will, with some justification, see this as the Government and the judiciary yet again siding with the elite.
Grieve’s views are endorsed by David Allen Green, a media lawyer and (according to the BBC) an “expert on social media”. He points out that everyone who publishes the names of those hiding behind these injunctions are open to prosecution.
Get real!
The image of Ryan Giggs was one of a consummate professional sportsman and role model for youngsters. As with Tiger Woods, this image was intrinsic to his status in both the sport and its associated commercial enterprises. As such, it is without doubt, in the public interest to know whether this remains the case. There are quite a few who portray themselves in a manner which bestows a certain status, coupled with an ability to make a lot of money. They are more than happy to use the media to promote this image. It is a public image. And that’s the point.
When that public image is shown to be a lie, then the public should be told.
This is not about privacy.
I couldn’t care less what any of these self-important twats had for their breakfast. I don’t care what hand they use to wipe their arse. And I’m certainly not in the slightest bit interested where they go on holiday and whether they get their kit off on the beach.
However, when they achieve a prominence and wealth by dint of a societal belief in a self-proclaimed portrayal then that society needs to be told that it has been deceived.
The problem over people “tweeting” the names of such people is one that has been created by the courts. These super-injunctions should have been declared dead in the water. By not doing so, judges are telling us in no uncertain terms, that the rich can have their cake and eat it.
This, rather than any tabloid styled expose, is the reason people post the names on the internet.
As for the Attorney General’s idea of prosecuting thousands (and bear in mind if he goes down this road it will become millions) of people who live outside England and Wales is a much anticipated exercise in wasting public money.
Are we to see injunctions against newspapers in Scotland, Eire, France, and the USA et al?
He might be able to go after Twitter, but unless he has any ideas on how to close down all the other websites in the world he’s doing what politicians do – talking spam. Unhelpful. Unwanted. And ultimately useless. Only to be believed by the gullible. And maybe the celebrity elite who think they can hide behind ludicrous judgements made in the now, unfortunately, discredited English courts.
