Talk:2011 British privacy injunctions controversy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Michael Napier[edit]

Should we mention Michael Napier from may 2009? Private eye regards it as the first super-injuction they ran into and it did get some wider media coverage [1].©Geni 23:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say a definite yes! Wasn't aware of this bit, but definitely worth mentioning towards the start. Benny Digital Speak Your Brains 12:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Split article[edit]

I was reading up on this in the case of "CTB" (where it seems, "C" may or may not stand for "R", "B" may or may not stand for "G" and like most professional footballers, he can't count up to two without getting his todger involved ("T")) and it strikes me that naming the article "2011 British super-injunction controversy" is bad in several ways :

  1. It includes mention of the 2009 Trafigura palaver ;
  2. It begs the question of how many more such controversies will happen in 2011?
  3. And in 2012 ... ?
  4. And were there any in 2010 that are currently out of the public eye (and may therefore be less controversial and provide relevant counter-examples)?

I don't know how to split an article - and I'll leave it to someone more experienced in Wikiing to act if it's thought appropriate. (RE: case of Napier - never heard of it or him. No comment.) Aidan Karley (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think an issue that is more pertinent is the fact that the Giggs issue is listed under a title "super-injunction controversy." Giggs was never issued with a super-injunction. Only two of those have been issued since January 2010 (see the Neuberger report). A large number of the examples on this page are incidences of anonymised privacy injunctions. A separate entity. "Super-injunctions" are very stringent injunctions that prevent any details of the case or of the injunction being published. That is plainly not the case here and this article should clarify that. Woody (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Much as judges have decided to put their very own interpretation on reality in this case, Neuberger's definition of 'super-injunction' is not the same as the rest of the planet's. All of Twitter is using superinjunction to describe the Giggs case, and given that when the law meets twitter, twitter wins, we should use superinjunction too. Ideally without the hyphen. As in superstore, superman etc. --Jonfish11 (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it's not British - it's English or Anglo-Welsh, as can be clearly seen from the actions of the Sunday Herald (in publishing a picture of Ryan Giggs). There is no such thing as an injunction in Scots law (it's an interdict).Richard Gadsden (talk) 11:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I seem to have been a little too bold in just renaming the page. I do think this should at least be "2011 English super-injunction controversy", and preferably "English privacy injunction controversy" - as it's not just 2011, English, not British, and they're privacy injunctions, not super-injunctions.Richard Gadsden (talk) 11:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have a read of this as there appears to be at least some doubt as to if the Sunday Herald got it right as some legal opinion suggests that they may be in breach an English injunction due to a House of Lords ruling in the 1987 Spycatcher case. In which case British would seem a better fit. VERTott 11:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Bonneville[edit]

Can we really name Hugh Bonneville in this article? I mean its obviously him (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1384757/Your-Secret-Life-So-mention-wife-Hugh---fact-drives-Volvo.html?ito=feeds-newsxml) but I dont think the sourcing is enough for it to be put in a wikipedia page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.169.8 (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are now non-English (reliable?) sources naming the actor connected with Helen Wood. Philip Cross (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are there? There were no sources given for hugh before the user above removed the part about him. Bambers (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Describing Hugh Bonneville as "a world famous actor" has become a May 2011 variation of the Nudge Nudge sketch in Monty Python. The UK press clearly thinks there is something that Hugh Bonneville might want to tell us, but there is no reliable sourcing and it would fail WP:BLP to link him to an injunction at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of super-injunctions[edit]

Is it worth updating the definition of a super-injunction to that given by Lord Neuberger's Committee on Super-Injunctions? In their report they defined it by:

A super-injunction is an interim injunction which restrains a person from: (i) publishing information which concerns the applicant and is said to be confidential or private; and, (ii) publicising or informing others of the existence of the order and the proceedings.

This is different from what is currently on the page (i.e. that it prevents reporting of some facts), which is just an ordinary injunction.

In a super-injunction (only three of which have been made since the start of 2010, according to the report, two lasting for days, and the third being over-turned on appeal), the key part is that the party bound by the injunction is not even allowed to report the existence of the injunction or order.

This contrasts with a 'standard' anonymised injunction which restricts the publication of some or all of the names involved. Most of the "controversial" cases (including the CTB and ETK cases linked on the page) do not involve super-injunctions under this definition for the obvious reason that the injunctions are given in public judgments.

For completeness, an anonymised injunction was defined by the committee by:

An anonymised injunction is an interim injunction which restrains a person from publishing information which concerns the applicant and is said to be confidential or private where the names of either or both of the parties to the proceedings are not stated.

Obviously both the CTB and ETK cases are anonymised.

While I'm here, perhaps the section on Max Mosley should link to the page on the case Max_Mosley_v_United_Kingdom --Duke (talk) 03:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Duke - You're clearly well versed in the subtle differences separating super, anonymised and plain old standard injunctions. Might I suggest your expertise might be better focused towards Super_injunction#UK_super-injunctions. I'm not sure this page should go to deep into the legalese of the matter. NickCT (talk) 04:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was making this point in the #Split article? section above. This definition certainly needs to be made here and perhaps the title of the page being updated. It is wrong to refer to the Sun issues as "Superinjunctions" and our article is currently misleading. I believe I caught it in most of the other articles and amended the text. Frankly, there was too much work in this article for me to attempt it. Woody (talk) 10:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the Super_injunction#UK_super-injunctions pages defines one as "a form of gagging order in which the press is prohibited from reporting even the existence of the injunction, or any details of it." which is the 'correct' definition, or at least, matches the one I've stated above. I understand the desire to avoid legalese (which is why I posted here), but I thought it important to note that the definition on this page does not match either the definition on the Wiki page, or the definition given by courts/judges. Of course, it does match the way it is being used by some of the media (but then they've been publishing inaccurate articles for centuries - particularly in subjects like this where there's a severe conflict of interest).
I wonder if, rather than trying to cram a better definition into Super_injunction#UK_super-injunctions, it might be worth merging both that section, this page, and some similar content into a fresh page on "Gagging orders in the UK" (or something more sensible), covering super-, hyper- and anonymised injunctions, including definitions and examples, and then with a controversy section?--Duke (talk) 01:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The word "super-injunction" was apparently coined by Alan Rusbridger, and has no formal definition. Although it may refer to an injunction whose existence cannot be mentioned, many media sources are taking it to mean an injunction where the claimant is anonymous.[2] This leads to a WP:COMMONNAME issue. I also support using "2011" for the reasons below.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is also worth noting the correction at the foot of this Guardian story. When Rusbridger coined the word "super-injunction" in 2009, it was in the context of the Trafigura affair, where the very existence of the injunction could not be mentioned. Unfortunately, the media is now freely using the term "super-injunction" to describe any injunction with an element of anonymity or hidden details. Wikipedia articles should take this on board, and avoid being too pedantic per WP:COMMONNAME.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Private Eye[edit]

Wasn't the Eye first to *indicate* it was going to report on the mention of trafigura in Parliament? As it's only published fortnightly, it was beaten to press, but IIRC it played an important role. I remember reading it, but don't have time right now to go looking for sources. A recent edition also listed a number of anonomised super injunctions - would it be appropriate to list them here?VJ (talk) 09:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was: there is no consensus to move the article to "English privacy injunction controversy". If the proposer desires to re-open the topic, I suggest that they do so merely as a consensus-developing conversation not attached to a move request, to explore the issue more deeply.
Yellowdesk (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


2011 British super-injunction controversy → English privacy injunction controversy – English rather than British because they don't apply in Scotland, privacy injunction rather than super-injunction because they mostly aren't super-injunctions (though some are) and omit 2011 as some date from 2009 or 2010. Richard Gadsden (talk) 11:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose All UK media sources are currently affected by this, whether they like it or not. England is not a sealed unit, and Alex Salmond has already commented on this factor. Many Scottish newspapers are sold openly in England. This row has been brewing since the Mosley case in 2008, but has risen to the top of the political agenda in 2011.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your views on the other parts of the rename (ie privacy injunction vs super-injunction and whether to include the year) would be appreciated Richard Gadsden (talk) 11:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as discussed in the Guardian here it is not clear if the Sunday Herald got it right and that they are in fact covered in Scotland by English court orders. So with that in mind and also for the reasons IanMacM detailed above it should remain 2011 British super-injunction controversy. VERTott 11:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And as discussed in the same paper, this is far from the first time this has happened. Precedence would suggest that the Sunday Herald is right and amazingly English courts still haven't yet got the message. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Vertott, this is a misunderstanding. Such injunctions definitely do not run in Scotland; that, though, doesn't mean anyone "violating" it in Scotland (or indeed the USA) will find it easy not to be found violating it in England and Wales as a result. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Technically correct as far as the legal position, but the actual affair discussed is relevant to the whole of Britain, including specifically the independence (or not) of the Scottish legal system. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the British–English reason already mentioned: although it is an issue specifically under English law, the controversy is British, and this article is about the controversy not about the law 'per se'. However, I think all the other points made by Richard Gadsden are spot on. The controversy is about privacy injunctions in general, with super-injunctions as a particular case, and spans several years. I would support a move/rename to British privacy injunction controversy. Mooncow (talk) 13:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the matter was refered to as 'super-injunction' in the formal Neuberger committee report and by the PM on TV, so i'd suggest the term, if not strictly legally correct, is in common usage and should be used here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.77.198 (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If anything, the Sunday Hereld (a newspaper sold only in Scotland) publishing 'CTB' (Ryan Giggs) on it's front page has dragged the question of how Scots law and English law interact into the question. Alex Salmond was questioned about this on the Today programme this morning. The question of British law is now more important than before - does this mean Scottish news papers can now post details about all the other injunctions? - VJ (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is no question here, and no lawyer thinks injuctions from English courts extent to Scotland. Scotland's independent legal system has been around for a while, and was never merged into the English one after 1707. Technically there is no such thing as "British law" when it comes to most things, though "British law" is clearly a well-used synonym to "English law" in commom (esp. non-UK) parlance. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A suggestion (gentle reminder?) to the people of Wales that they are subject to "English law" will be almost as popular as the same suggestion made to the people of Scotland. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some may not like it, but it's the truth. Wales has been subject to English law since 1542. The independence of Scots law was upheld in the Treaty of Union, 1707. Opera hat (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The truth, especially the historical truth, is not always popular. The popular UK press, of course, cannot really afford to respect UK national boundaries, can it? But how quaint of us. The www has no notion even of nations, let alone of national law? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually using (admittedly, incorrectly) "British law" as a synonym for "UK wide law" (which does exist); my point is that the Sunday Hereld case highlighted the difference between English law, Scottish law and UK law. Hence this is still a UK wide issue. Hell, one of the major cases here is that a Welsh footballer was given an injunction by an English court which was subsequently broken by a Scottish newspaper - do your really want to claim that the political fallout is an England only matter? If this really has nothing to do with Scotland, why was Alex Salmond interviewed over it? IMO The independance of Scottish law played a big part in the news story. - VJ (talk) 10:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment Scottish law uses interdicts, not injunctions. Apparently, interdicts cannot be anonymised (could a legal expert confirm/source this?) This means that all injunctions of this type are technically unenforceable in Scotland. The real problem, and the reason why the Scottish media currently go along with the London injunctions, is the difficulty in preventing English people from accessing Scottish media sources. This is likely to become a major political issue with implications for the proposed referendum on Scottish independence.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose some of the changes in name. I can see the point in removing "2011", but the other changes are more controversial. As this move request is clearly going to be defeated, person the proposer would like to trifurcate the move request?
    1. Remove 2011
    2. Change "British" to "English" (or "Anglo-Welsh", or something like that)
    3. Change "Super-injunction" to "privacy injunction"
    — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will happily do that - in fact, I'll drop the British > English proposal, as I've been convinced by the arguments - but I would like the bifurcation onto 2011 and super-injunction / privacy injunction. Can someone point me at how to do that? Richard Gadsden (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support "privacy injunction", as "super-injunction" has always sounded to me like a tabloidism. Less convinced about losing the year - true some cases do date from 2009, but it seems to have all come to a head in 2011 (with 7 months yet to go?) Martinevans123 (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also Support "privacy injunction" because as I understand it, many of the cases that are now basically public knoledege don't actually involve true "super injunctions" but are just anonomised normal injunctions. I'm not fussed either way over the year, but dropping it would make some sense as many of the injunctions were granted some time ago & who knows how long this will rumble on for. Governments are notorious for kicking difficult issues into the long grass... - VJ (talk) 10:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - Alex 'Braveheart' Salmond opening his trap on the matter made it Britain wide. Whether the injunction has any force in Scotland has never been tested legally despite the juristictional issues (during the Spycatcher scandal the UK Government came very close to bringing proceedings in Scotland against several newspapers). Regardless' the courts in the UK - including Scotland - claim universal jurisdiction, however practical that may be, so they could come after the Herald journos for criminal comtempt. This has as much relevance to Scots law as it does to English and European law and also raises important UK consititutional issues with regard to the relations between any of the parliaments and the judiciary. The issue also clearly has Britain-wide interest and notability given the press coverage in Scotland and NIreland. 129.11.77.198 (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is though is a case of English law not British law. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support privacy injunction instead of super-injunction. Not so hot (or oppose) on the others. The reliable media sources are correctly calling the injunctions privacy injunctions and not the inaccurate super-injunctions. Having the title at this name is breeding confusion. Woody (talk) 22:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I oppose leaving out the year because this particular controversy started with articles published in The Sun in the beginning of 2011; I oppose changing "British" to "English" because the controversy does involve Scotland and Wales; I oppose changing "super-injuction" to "privacy injunction" because that changes the meaning. "Super-injunction" (though not a formal legal term) specifically refers to an injunction whose very existence may not be discussed; as I understand it, not every privacy injunction is a super-injunction, and the bizar media behaviour that is central to the controversy happens exactly because they can't even mention the existence of the injunctions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 16:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the existence of the injunction cannot be made known then the press can't get themselves into a lather, so I have to disagree with your logic here. Super-injunctions are very rare, only two since 2010 and none of them have stayed "super" for too long. The majority of the injunctions on this page, and the injunctions that are getting the British gutter press in such a frenzy are anonymised privacy injunctions. They are not super-injunctions, hence why I believe the title needs to be changed. Woody (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's tricky when a three-fold change has been proposed. The propser has said that he now drops the British > English proposal, as he's been convinced by the arguments. But he wants "bifurcation" for 2011 and super-injunction / privacy. Not sure how that's done without starting again? But if he can be convinced by Woody's argument above, then we'd be left with just dropping the year. So far we have 9/1 in oppostion, but that was for a three-way change. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Woody, the absurdity of the media behaviour is in the absence of coverage, in pretending ignorance of things both the press and audiences know about and that are discussed extensively in the non-UK press, on twitter or on blogs. I do take your point that, as far as we know, many of the injunctions discussed in the article are not super-injunctions - still, I think I would continue to defend the current name of the article on the ground that "super-injunction" is the term used by most sources in discussing this stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 19:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say it used to be, but the quality media (broadsheets/BBC etc) is now differentiating between privacy injunctions and super-injunctions. We know that they aren't super-injunctions, Neuberger's report states that only two were handed out since January 2010 and neither of them are still in force. Just because other people are perptuating factual inaccuracies does not mean that we should. Woody (talk) 20:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, how about "2011 British privacy injunction controversy"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 08:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is a good idea and more or less covers it. Since the 2011 controversy is almost entirely about anonymised privacy injunctions taken out by celebrities, it is misleading to compare the situation to Trafigura in 2009, which was a true "super-injunction" as its existence could not be mentioned.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

ETK[edit]

I propose that ETK v News Group Newspapers Ltd be merged here. Even if the injunction is lifted, it is unlikely there would be enough information provided to make it separately notable; on the other hand, it's clearly on topic here, if The Daily Mail is a reliable source for lawsuits. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, goodness knows how ETK was considered worth an anonymised injunction in the first place. This is a routine extra-marital affair, not an issue of state security.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the end of the road for ETK after the publication of names in an Irish newspaper, see Talk:David_Threlfall#Irish_newspaper.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More coverage here. Since no-one has come forward to dispute the accuracy of this story, it can be safely assumed to be true. The real issue is how wikinotable it is. So far, the publication of the names in Ireland has attracted little interest. Public boredom is protecting privacy more effectively than court action in this case.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CTB/Giggs case merge[edit]

Propose all the stuff not immediately relevant to the case (ie - all tyhe background and controversy + reactions) should go in here and the CTB v News Group Newspapers article be cut down just to reporting the facts of the case and the timeline. Opinions? 129.11.77.198 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

  • Oppose -- not least because the proposal doesn't come with a rationale. In any event, I can't imagine why we wouldn't want an article on the case that gives the background and implications. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose CTB easily meets WP:GNG for a standalone article at the moment, with more details likely to come.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Firstly no rationale and secondly plenty significant for a full standalone article VERTott 02:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No as the CTB article has more detail and had quite enough sources to sustain a stand-alone article. This page is now a summary article as per WP:SUMMARY. Woody (talk) 08:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parliamentary privilege[edit]

"On 23 May 2011, shortly following a ruling by the High Court to retain the injunction, John Hemming once again utilised parliamentary privilege to name the footballer who sought the injunction in a parliamentary question. The BBC initially declined to report the question or name, but after some hours followed the rest of the media by updating its website[38] whereas Sky News[39] and the Financial Times[40] immediately named the player as Ryan Giggs."

Hemming started to ask his question about 15:52 live on the BBC Parliament channel (available on iPlayer until 30 May). BBC News led with the story, naming Giggs, at 17:00 and by 17:12 (given time of last update) the relevant clip was part of a news item on the BBC website. Given the timings in this articles edit history, why are the BBC being given such a hard time? Are the references to Sky and FT web pages supposed to prove they were first (and do they)? Did not everyone (wiki editors included) watch BBC Parliament and report from there? Kmitch87 (talk) 12:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here seems not to have been Ryan Giggs, whose name was an open secret by this point, but the fact that Hemming named Giles Coren as well. This set off a fresh row, and clarification was sought. John Hemming is well aware that Parliament goes out live on TV, and while Sky News immediately accepted his naming of Giggs, the naming of Giles Coren is likely to prove more controversial.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sky News explanation, and Twitter deadline passes[edit]

John Hemming's speech went out live on television, and Sky's political editor Adam Boulton explains here that it was considered "extremely unlikely" that there would be action against Sky for reporting it, as there was a public interest defence.

Also, on 25 May 2011, the deadline passed for Twitter to hand over details of users allegedly involved in the privacy breach.[3] The FT story says "Neither Twitter nor Schillings, the law firm representing the footballer, have commented on whether Wednesday’s deadline was met. But none of Twitter’s users has said they have been told by the Californian company that it has handed over their personal details, in line with its stated policy, as they have in similar cases previously".--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sun sweepstake kit[edit]

The super soaraway Sun has published a cut out 'n' keep sweepstake for guessing the names of people in the injunctions.[4] On a more serious note, the sweepstake shows that there are far more of these cases than has been generally reported, and that The Sun is sitting on a list of stories that it is itching to publish.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any consensus for a rename?[edit]

Any consensus for a rename to 2011 English privacy injunctions controversy?

To quote Paul McBridge QC as I can't put it better myself (http://www.europerank.com/world/browse.php?u=Oi8vd3d3Lmd1YXJkaWFuLmNvLnVrL21lZGlhLzIwMTEvbWF5LzIyL3Njb3R0aXNoLW5ld3NwYXBlci1pbmRlbnRpZmllcy1mb290YmFsbGVy&b=29)

"English law injunctions do not have jurisdiction in Scotland. If a party wanted to restrict the Scottish press, as well as the English, it would need to undertake parallel legal proceedings in Scotland, in order to obtain an "interdict". This did not happen in the present case and so the Scottish press is not bound by the English injunction."

The Law Lord's dicta in Spycatcher is all well and good but they are commenting on something outside of their jurisdiction!

Quickbeam44 (talk) 00:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed before and rejected. The law applies in England and Wales, while Scottish media outlets are affected whether they like it or not. The Sunday Herald published the Giggs photo only after checking that it was not selling copies in England, and the story was not on the Herald website.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo on injunctions[edit]

In a speech in London on 1 November 2011, Jimmy Wales called UK privacy injunctions "a bad law" and said that Wikipedia had complied with them "by accident" as only the lack of reliable sourcing prevented Wikipedia from naming the people involved.[5]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! That's what inspired me to want to start this article in the first place! This amuses me no end Benny Digital Speak Your Brains 15:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The irony is that even if the injunctions were lifted, many of them would fail WP:BLPGOSSIP. The latest tabloid trivia is rarely suitable material for a BLP, and it is only the Streisand effect caused by the injunctions that makes some of the claims notable. I thought about adding Jimbo's comments to the article, but was worried about WP:SELFREF.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know! Normally I could happily live without thinking about Clarkson or Giggs at any time! It just riles me that they can abuse the law for something so trivial. And these cases shift more papers, helping a prevention of this law being abused, as in the Trafigura case, and Fred Goodwin... Personally, I think Jimbo, as a leading authority in the freedom of both information and speech today counts as a very notable source in this regard. Benny Digital Speak Your Brains 16:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two new injunctions[edit]

This story is in the Press Gazette. There are two new injunctions: "One was in a case referred to as QWE v SDF, GHJ and RTY, and the other was in a case called STU v UVW and XYZ. In the QWE case judgment, Justice Tugendhat said the order he granted banned the disclosure of specified information "and in particular any information concerning the fact or details of the sexual relationships" between QWE and SDF and GHJ". And that is all we know at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2011 British privacy injunctions controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011_British_privacy_injunctions_controversy&oldid=1196587084"