Turn on thread page Beta

Hyper-injunctions: The enemy of free speech watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ing-to-MP.html
    Voters are being barred from speaking to their MPs under a new generation of gagging orders known as hyper-injunctions, the House of Commons has been told.
    Politicians criticised the injunctions as an "affront to democracy" after John Hemming, a Liberal Democrat MP, disclosed details of one on the floor of the Commons last week.

    His comments are protected by parliamentary privilege, which means he cannot face court proceedings for revealing the injunction's existence. This month, Mr Hemming also used parliamentary privilege to disclose that Sir Fred Goodwin, the former chief executive of the Royal Bank of Scotland, had taken out a super-injunction.

    The hyper-injunction goes a step further. Mr Hemming told the Commons that the order, which was obtained at the High Court in 2006, prevents an individual from saying that paint used in water tanks on passenger ships could break down and release potentially toxic chemicals.

    It specifically bars the person from discussing the case with "members of Parliament, journalists and lawyers", along with the US coastguard and any ship owners, and also forbids any speculation linking chemicals in the paint with the illness of any individuals.

    It says: "The defendant must not communicate to the third parties any speculation that the illness of any individual (including without limitation the collapse of H) was, has been or will be brought out by the chemical composition or the chemicals present in the coating of the potable water tanks." According to Mr Hemming, the individual was given a two-week suspended sentence after talking to a lawyer about whether he would take up the case on a no-win, no-fee basis. Mr Hemming said: "What we have, therefore, is passenger vessels trundling around the world with potentially toxic substances being released into the tanks. One of those who worked on the tanks collapsed as a result.
    It lays the grounds for a corporate police state.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Don't care anymore.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nonotrly)
    Don't care anymore.
    Ok, so you are completely fine with having your freedom of speech eroded.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I know that the constitution is a whole mishmash of different documents, but I'm pretty sure that denying a constituent access to their MP is about as unconstitutional as you can get. The Supreme Court should be made to slap this down, and if they refuse to then hopefully there'll be a big Judiciary Vs. Legislature fight. Woop!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aphotic Cosmos)
    I know that the constitution is a whole mishmash of different documents, but I'm pretty sure that denying a constituent access to their MP is about as unconstitutional as you can get. The Supreme Court should be made to slap this down, and if they refuse to then hopefully there'll be a big Judiciary Vs. Legislature fight. Woop!
    What are the chances of the Supreme Court having the cojones to fight the House of Commons?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Liquidus Zeromus)
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ing-to-MP.html


    It lays the grounds for a corporate police state.
    What kind of a retard judge allowed such an injunction?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Liquidus Zeromus)
    Ok, so you are completely fine with having your freedom of speech eroded.
    Politics is ****, the quality of Britain is decreasing, nothing new.

    I'm not ok with it, but I accept I am powerless to do anything. It doesn't affect me. Plus, contacting MPs is probably about as successful as protesting anyway.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    i find it funy that the same people who complain about super-injunctions etc. are the same that complain their privacy is being breached by CCTV, ie. the guardian.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GwrxVurfer)
    All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
    Ok good man, do something.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    What kind of a retard judge allowed such an injunction?
    A corrupt one
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GwrxVurfer)
    I am.
    Well whatever it is you claim to have done, the situation is still the same.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    The reasons that injunctions in cases like these are granted are because claims made are held to be defamatory or there is a breach of confidence or privacy. These so-called superinjunctions are only used in the latter whilst a case is subject to judicial proceedings and there is a sound prima facie case that the matter being heard were improper.

    The alternative is that individuals would be unable to guard against defamation and breaches of confidence because the matter would become one of public knowledge. It would make judicial enforcement of the law in this area practically unworkable.

    We entrust judges with the ability to discern what restrictions are necessary for the operation of justice. That is, to my mind, perfectly sound.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    The reasons that injunctions in cases like these are granted are because claims made are held to be defamatory or there is a breach of confidence or privacy. These so-called superinjunctions are only used in the latter whilst a case is subject to judicial proceedings and there is a sound prima facie case that the matter being heard were improper.

    The alternative is that individuals would be unable to guard against defamation and breaches of confidence because the matter would become one of public knowledge. It would make judicial enforcement of the law in this area practically unworkable.

    We entrust judges with the ability to discern what restrictions are necessary for the operation of justice. That is, to my mind, perfectly sound.
    Legal jargon aside, this goes well beyond reasonable protection from defamation. It's fine for individuals to use injunctions to protect their personal details, but when they use it to cover up inconvenient truths, or when corporate interests are allowed to obtain powerful gags despite potential urgent risks to public safety, that crosses the line and goes completely against freedom of speech.

    Judges don't have that much independence here. At the end of the day, they're just there to prescribe the law as they interpret it, behind a facade of moral authority. And the law as it stands is rigged.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GwrxVurfer)
    And is not being able to change anything a reason for giving up in your view?
    As you recall, my view was that politics is ****, and it's fair to say this is ****.

    However, what I said was I don't care anymore. That's not giving up on my view, that's just not putting in the effort of making a topic about it on some internet forum, or waving a board around outside a building pretending I have the power to change things like this.

    You apparently feel you are successfully fighting the power, so feel free to go ahead and stop the war in Iraq, get Jan Moir fired, lower the bonuses of bank managers and have the Pope arrested on child molestation charges when you have the time too.

    Oh wait.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GwrxVurfer)
    Evil will never go away, but it will be stopped from flourishing if good men (and good ladies ) always stand up to it.
    Indeed. I look at this news article and that news article, and many topics made here, and I think "well, evil sure isn't flourishing these days. Thank you democracy and people-power".

    I think you need to cut out the meaningless quotes which sound cool, trying to be a philosopher who gets a bust made of them and gets in people's sigs, and start not wasting your time caring about this stuff we have no control over.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GwrxVurfer)
    I have no control over lots of issues, but why on earth should that mean I stop caring about them?
    Because you have no control over them, your time and energy is better spent on more positive things.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GwrxVurfer)
    And you seriously think that's an acceptable reason for giving up on the things you care about?
    You're talking you've just had your child kidnapped, not about an injunction. Shocking.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Liquidus Zeromus)
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ing-to-MP.html


    It lays the grounds for a corporate police state.
    Completely agree they are undemocratic and unfair, they should be banned.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Liquidus Zeromus)
    It lays the grounds for a corporate police state.
    It really doesn't lol.

    But at least I've heard them called 'hyper-injunctions' - I've only ever heard 'super-injunctions' at uni.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Quite frankly if I was in that situation I'd just stick two fingers up to the justice system if they tried to gag me over something and give the information to wikileaks to publish wide and far. Not much you can do about it once it is all over the internet. The fact that the information wasn't supposed to get out would peak peoples interests causing it to further spread. I'd take the resulting prison sentence as a badge of honour that threats of incarceration can never defeat free speech.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 22, 2011
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.