Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Extremely Fluffy Fluffy Thing posted:

What happens if it is breached?

To breach the order is a contempt of court, carrying a criminal punishment for anyone to reveal the facts which judges decide must remain secret.

It is even a contempt for members of the public to discuss the case online - which in legal terms is the same as publishing the material in a newspaper.

Does that still apply even if we are a Seattle based site ? 

Baz
Baz posted:
Extremely Fluffy Fluffy Thing posted:

What happens if it is breached?

To breach the order is a contempt of court, carrying a criminal punishment for anyone to reveal the facts which judges decide must remain secret.

It is even a contempt for members of the public to discuss the case online - which in legal terms is the same as publishing the material in a newspaper.

Does that still apply even if we are a Seattle based site ? 

I would think so because our posts can be seen in the country to which the injunction applies.

Extremely Fluffy Fluffy Thing
Sprout posted:
Cold Sweat posted:
Baz posted:
Cold Sweat posted:

Look what happened to Thames Television after they broadcast Death On The Rock.

 

We're all being watched!

They must be very bored then CS  

I keep expecting to see an unmarked transit van with a satellite dish on it's roof parked on the street.

It could be EC  

Rofl  

Baz
Sprout posted:
Cold Sweat posted:
Baz posted:
Cold Sweat posted:

Look what happened to Thames Television after they broadcast Death On The Rock.

 

We're all being watched!

They must be very bored then CS  

I keep expecting to see an unmarked transit van with a satellite dish on it's roof parked on the street.

It could be EC  

I don't think Aston Martin make a transit van.

Cold Sweat
Cold Sweat posted:
Sprout posted:
Cold Sweat posted:
Baz posted:
Cold Sweat posted:

Look what happened to Thames Television after they broadcast Death On The Rock.

 

We're all being watched!

They must be very bored then CS  

I keep expecting to see an unmarked transit van with a satellite dish on it's roof parked on the street.

It could be EC  

I don't think Aston Martin make a transit van.

 

Baz
pirate1111 posted:

i'll put you all out of your misery...it was me...sometimes i think im funny & post daft things, ive been told not to & i wont do it again

cos i like it here and dont want to get me or anyone else into bother

TBH Pirate, I think some of the comments on this thread show that a number of us were unclear about just what the legal situation is.

As others have said, I'm sure you didn't mean any harm.

Eugene's Lair

Although the injunction was temporarily lifted, the ban on reporting was made as 'JPS' (as he was known in court) was given time to appeal that decision. The appeal has been heard and a 4-1 decision has been made to uphold the original injunction. Thus we are basically back to square one and this sorry little episode is still 'a secret'.

Extremely Fluffy Fluffy Thing
Extremely Fluffy Fluffy Thing posted:

Although the injunction was temporarily lifted, the ban on reporting was made as 'JPS' (as he was known in court) was given time to appeal that decision. The appeal has been heard and a 4-1 decision has been made to uphold the original injunction. Thus we are basically back to square one and this sorry little episode is still 'a secret'.

presumably because if it's overturned it sets a precedent and the ones overturning probably have enough (even worse) skeletons of their own that they don't want out of the cupboards.  However - I don't give a monkey's who they're bonking but those two wee boys are going to find out anyway one day, so using them as the reason to silence the press is a waste of time

Kaffs
Kaffs posted:
Extremely Fluffy Fluffy Thing posted:

Although the injunction was temporarily lifted, the ban on reporting was made as 'JPS' (as he was known in court) was given time to appeal that decision. The appeal has been heard and a 4-1 decision has been made to uphold the original injunction. Thus we are basically back to square one and this sorry little episode is still 'a secret'.

presumably because if it's overturned it sets a precedent and the ones overturning probably have enough (even worse) skeletons of their own that they don't want out of the cupboards.  However - I don't give a monkey's who they're bonking but those two wee boys are going to find out anyway one day, so using them as the reason to silence the press is a waste of time

I agree Kaffs 

Baz
Extremely Fluffy Fluffy Thing posted:

Apparently it's all to do with 'How private should a celebrity's private life be?' and 'Is it really in the public interest?' As one source put it, "Some members of the public may be interested, but that does not mean it is generally In the wider 'public interest.'

In other words, everyone knows who it is but no one is allowed too say?
I don't tbh but then I'm one of the "I couldn't give a toss who it is" peeps

Moonie

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×