Beef Injunction

robschneider
Posts: 295
Joined: Wed 14 Aug, 2013 14.53

The identity can be discussed in Scotland? Is Metropol247.co.uk not wholly owned north of the border?
Alexia
Posts: 2970
Joined: Sat 01 Oct, 2005 17.50

robschneider wrote:The identity can be discussed in Scotland? Is Metropol247.co.uk not wholly owned north of the border?
It's not as simple as that. Where are the servers? Where are you posting from?
User avatar
Pete
Posts: 7228
Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 13.36
Location: Dundee

Alexia wrote:
robschneider wrote:The identity can be discussed in Scotland? Is Metropol247.co.uk not wholly owned north of the border?
It's not as simple as that. Where are the servers? Where are you posting from?
Indeed its not simple - therefore if this side of the discussion can cease immediately because it's my and Gavin's names attached to this site.

I don't mind the basic concept being discussed but anything like what was on the last page or the initial reply to that post and I'll happily reach for the ban button. Not another word.

I appreciate this is totally arbitrary but it's the nature of the beast.

Thank you.
"He has to be larger than bacon"
cwathen
Posts: 1144
Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 17.28

As others have said, you can't use the press and the internet as a tool to suit you when it's promoting your image or making you money and then try and gag it if might publish something you don't like.

Many have also commented on the futility of the injunction - it's very easy to find the information out if you want to.

Putting aside the fact that I would say it is inevitable that the injunction will be lifted on Monday (particularly since one of the judges involved has commented on the fact that many people already know anyway) at which point we can hopefully have a sensible discussion about this, I would say that 'the couple' will ultimately regret attempting to gag the media in this way - it's giving this story far more mileage than it otherwise would have got and thus will keep them in the limelight for longer. The actual story is frankly only newsworthy enough to last a day or two before running it's course (personally I don't even seen it as much of a story). The story about the fact that you can't discuss the story has far more mileage in it and will likely become an oft-quoted example in the future where these types of injunctions are granted.

And TBH, the scale of this is a little bit frightening. An injunction against the media in England and Wales to me means preventing acknowledged news sources from publishing it. It shouldn't mean that we're in a position when it can't be discussed here in case the couple's lawyers deem that to be 'publishing' the story. It shouldn't mean Google actively clearing search results linking to it in case they are deemed to be assisting us in accessing prohibited information (I believe as a result of legal threats from the couple's lawyers).

If that kind of thing is allowed to slide, how far will it go? What if I boarded a train in Scotland with 'a major national Scottish newspaper' and brought it into England? Should I be sued for bringing banned publications into the country? Could the train company be sued for not ensuring that all such Scottish newspapers containing the offending material were not removed before leaving Scotland?

Indeed, if we need to be careful on here should I be worried that I openly discussed it in a pub 2 days ago - could I be sued for discussing it in public in case someone who didn't already know about it found out from me and thus I 'published' it?

Last time I checked, we were not living in North Korea.
robschneider
Posts: 295
Joined: Wed 14 Aug, 2013 14.53

Nail on the head I think. I don't think the story would have had a lasting impact had it not been for the injunction. I think it's going to lose the couple a lot of credibility if it gets lifted - especially as, like you say, most people now know.
Alexia
Posts: 2970
Joined: Sat 01 Oct, 2005 17.50

The Barbara Streisand effect all over again.
scottishtv
Posts: 635
Joined: Thu 01 Apr, 2004 15.36
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Bail wrote:Why do you never use uppercase? I thought it was a one off at first, but lots of your posts are entirely lower case... any reason?
I asked once before, and was offered this explanation.
robschneider
Posts: 295
Joined: Wed 14 Aug, 2013 14.53

So today's the day. Personally I think it's a waste of people's time. The person in question has more money than sense. Had it just been allowed to run it'd be "great, fine" and be chip shop paper tomorrow.

All they've done is set themselves up when it does come out. They'be already done that in those territories where they can be named.
simonipswich
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue 21 May, 2013 14.11
Location: Ipswich

robschneider wrote:If it wasn't for the National Enquirer this whole saga would have [blown over]

ONE WEEK BAN APPLIED
cwathen
Posts: 1144
Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 17.28

Provided there's no appeal, the injunction will be lifted at 1PM on Wednesday.
robschneider
Posts: 295
Joined: Wed 14 Aug, 2013 14.53

I notice the Scottish Sun haven't named them on their site... have they in the print version in Scotland?
Please Respond