Jump to content

super injunctions

barry luxton

By barry luxton
in Non-Fishing Chat

 Share

Recommended Posts

barry luxton Member

barry luxton

Posted
Posted (edited)

Taking a chance with this topic. How come the rest of the world, mp's in the commons are allowed to talk about who is hiding behind them but no one in the uk. Appears to be a total waste of courts time in my mind with regards to free speech etc. Is there anyone in the uk who doesn't know who we are talking about, including his missus. On the other side of the coin, i can't see what imogen is whinging about, apart from the fact that she can't sell her story to the newspaper. Nice looking bit of crumpet though. B)

 

The bloke in question is trying to sue twitter, an American company, they arn't bound by the uk's laws so i can't see him getting far with that one.

 

The truth will out. :)

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13475703

Edited by barry luxton

Free to choose apart from the ones where the trust poked their nose in. Common eel. tope. Bass and sea bream. All restricted.


New for 2016 TAT are the main instigators for the demise of the u k bass charter boat industry, where they went screaming off to parliament and for the first time assisting so called angling gurus set up bass take bans with the e u using rubbish exaggerated info collected by ices from anglers, they must be very proud.

Upgrade, the door has been closed with regards to anglers being linked to the e u superstate and the failed c f p. So TAT will no longer need to pay monies to the EAA anymore as that org is no longer relevant to the u k . Goodbye to the europeon anglers alliance and pathetic restrictions from the e u.

Angling is better than politics, ban politics from angling.

Consumer of bass. where is the evidence that the u k bass stock need angling trust protection. Why won't you work with your peers instead of castigating them. They have the answer.

Recipie's for mullet stew more than welcomed.

Angling sanitation trust and kent and sussex sea anglers org delete's and blocks rsa's alternative opinion on their face book site. Although they claim to rep all.

new for 2014. where is the evidence that the south coast bream stock need the angling trust? Your campaign has no evidence. Why won't you work with your peers, the inshore under tens? As opposed to alienating them? Angling trust failed big time re bait digging, even fish legal attempted to intervene and failed, all for what, nothing.

Looks like the sea angling reps have been coerced by the ifca's to compose sea angling strategy's that the ifca's at some stage will look at drafting into legislation to manage the rsa, because they like wasting tax payers money. That's without asking the rsa btw. You know who you are..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 27
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

ayjay Member

ayjay

Posted
Posted
Is there anyone in the uk who doesn't know who we are talking about, including his missus.

 

Me.

 

I'm sure I could google it , but I'm not interested in faux celebrities, (or real ones), Twitter, footballers sex lives and all that general tittle tattle which will fill the likes of the News of the Screws and various other tawdry publications tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Newt Member

Newt

Posted
Posted
Lib Dem MP Mr Hemming, who has campaigned against the increasing use of injunctions and first raised the Goodwin case in the Commons, called Lord Neuberger and Lord Judge's remarks "unconstitutional".

This was one of several mentions of a constitution in the article. I was not aware you folks had one.

" My choices in life were either to be a piano player in a whore house or a politician. And to tell the truth, there's hardly any difference!" - Harry Truman, 33rd US President

Link to comment
Share on other sites
corydoras Member

corydoras

Posted
Posted
This was one of several mentions of a constitution in the article. I was not aware you folks had one.
There are some who think a few medieval scribblings count Newt.

The problem isn't what people don't know, it's what they know that just ain't so.
Vaut mieux ne rien dire et passer pour un con que de parler et prouver que t'en est un!
Mi, ch’fais toudis à m’mote

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Peter M Member

Peter M

Posted
Posted
This was one of several mentions of a constitution in the article. I was not aware you folks had one.

 

the human rights act is a written constitution via the back door. The uk does have an unwritten constitution though that is worked out through court precedent, eg the law of Tort such as duty of care. (see Donoghue v Stevenson)

 

Social media makes super injunctions meaningless unless the govt. propose a censor on what we can see on the internet like they do in North Korea,

take a look at my blog

http://chubcatcher.blogspot.co.uk/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
barry luxton Member

barry luxton

Posted
  • Author
Posted

This is what a judge has said, yet surly it will be difficult as the web is global and one law in one country certainly dosen't apply in others.

And who's going to have control? of the web.

 

quote

 

However, he warned that modern technology was "totally out of control" and society should consider other ways to bring Twitter and other websites under control.

Free to choose apart from the ones where the trust poked their nose in. Common eel. tope. Bass and sea bream. All restricted.


New for 2016 TAT are the main instigators for the demise of the u k bass charter boat industry, where they went screaming off to parliament and for the first time assisting so called angling gurus set up bass take bans with the e u using rubbish exaggerated info collected by ices from anglers, they must be very proud.

Upgrade, the door has been closed with regards to anglers being linked to the e u superstate and the failed c f p. So TAT will no longer need to pay monies to the EAA anymore as that org is no longer relevant to the u k . Goodbye to the europeon anglers alliance and pathetic restrictions from the e u.

Angling is better than politics, ban politics from angling.

Consumer of bass. where is the evidence that the u k bass stock need angling trust protection. Why won't you work with your peers instead of castigating them. They have the answer.

Recipie's for mullet stew more than welcomed.

Angling sanitation trust and kent and sussex sea anglers org delete's and blocks rsa's alternative opinion on their face book site. Although they claim to rep all.

new for 2014. where is the evidence that the south coast bream stock need the angling trust? Your campaign has no evidence. Why won't you work with your peers, the inshore under tens? As opposed to alienating them? Angling trust failed big time re bait digging, even fish legal attempted to intervene and failed, all for what, nothing.

Looks like the sea angling reps have been coerced by the ifca's to compose sea angling strategy's that the ifca's at some stage will look at drafting into legislation to manage the rsa, because they like wasting tax payers money. That's without asking the rsa btw. You know who you are..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Peter M Member

Peter M

Posted
Posted

i am sorry i dont agree with the judge, the internet is not out of control. It is regulated regarding such things as terrorism and child pornography. That is necessary. but the internet is part of our democratic right to live in an open society and have freedom of information. it is not up to the state or its organs to limit our freedom. I personally do not like kiss and tell stories but it is a price we pay for a free press which is a cornerstone of a free society.

take a look at my blog

http://chubcatcher.blogspot.co.uk/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
corydoras Member

corydoras

Posted
Posted
the human rights act is a written constitution via the back door.
That's your opinion but it's a heap of old cobblers. You make it sound like having a proper written constitution would be a bad thing. Do you think the Americans or the French would swap their respective constitutions for the Human Rights Act?

The problem isn't what people don't know, it's what they know that just ain't so.
Vaut mieux ne rien dire et passer pour un con que de parler et prouver que t'en est un!
Mi, ch’fais toudis à m’mote

Link to comment
Share on other sites
corydoras Member

corydoras

Posted
Posted
That is necessary. but the internet is part of our democratic right to live in an open society and have freedom of information.
Where in our unwritten constitution does it say this?

The problem isn't what people don't know, it's what they know that just ain't so.
Vaut mieux ne rien dire et passer pour un con que de parler et prouver que t'en est un!
Mi, ch’fais toudis à m’mote

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HERUTILUS Member

HERUTILUS

Posted
Posted
Taking a chance with this topic. How come the rest of the world, mp's in the commons are allowed to talk about who is hiding behind them but no one in the uk. Appears to be a total waste of courts time in my mind with regards to free speech etc. Is there anyone in the uk who doesn't know who we are talking about, including his missus. On the other side of the coin, i can't see what imogen is whinging about, apart from the fact that she can't sell her story to the newspaper. Nice looking bit of crumpet though. B)

 

The bloke in question is trying to sue twitter, an American company, they arn't bound by the uk's laws so i can't see him getting far with that one.

 

The truth will out. :)

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13475703

 

Hello BL, :)

 

Being a nobody as I am I'm only casually interested in how other people, the so-called 'celebs', lead their lives. <_<

 

However, & in so saying, I'm of the opinion if someone who has a bob or two is lucky enough to be getting a 'bit of naughty' on the side that's his, or hers, business only. I can go along with the fact that Fred Goodwin's dallyings are maybe 'in the public interest' but when such as Wayne Rooney has his private life dragged through the media circus I don't think it's right, if you know what I mean? One way or another the taxpayer was paying 'Fred the Shred's' salary & bonus payments, but with Wayno its a wee bit different. Yes, Wayne is being paid indirectly by the public, but only in the sense that he's a well-paid employee, so what he does in his own time is his business, not <_<ours.

If Wayne's cheating on his wife when she's expecting thats not nice at all, but again its no one' business except that of Mr & Mrs Wayne Rooney, ditto that of Mr & Mrs John Terry a while back now. <_<

 

Leave them all alone I say, who cares anyway what they get up to?

 

Regards, :)

 

H.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We and our partners use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences, repeat visits and to show you personalised advertisements. By clicking “I Agree”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit Cookie Settings to provide a controlled consent.

  I accept