´óÏó´«Ã½

If Ryan Giggs hadn't tried to use a superinjunction, I'd never have heard of him. Did he think he was famous?

@1 vainly_here

Apparently he's employed by a fairly successful football club, so I'd assume fans of said club (not to mention the newspapers sporting mastheads with red backgrounds) would have been aware of him before he obtained his #superinjunction...

So a superinjunction is simply a way to ensure that you become really famous (or infamous). I don't think I can afford to become famous.

vainly_here makes a very valid point. I believe Ryan Giggs scored an own goal in his superinjunction.

I'll be listening at 5PM (pips willing)

I sense a photo caption competition coming on...

"Don't hang it from the wrong lapel."

I am about to take out a superinjunction to forbid you from even mentioning the new PM Privacy Commission, let alone telling us what it is, and especially who's going to be on it.
Ha! That's scuppered your programme now.

Can you get someone to explain the difference between super injunctions and mere anonymous injunctions, because I hear stuff like Giggs' were the latter rather than the former.

Also, how they relate to D-notices which the government uses (used?) to request the media stays schtum about national security matters. Are they effectively the same thing?

Finally, something about the much more important subject of companies obtaining super injunctions to cover up things like dumping of toxic waste. Should a company be entitled to privacy like a person?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Hi Stainless Steel Cat (oh I know I should be all @The Stainless Steel Cat but... its been a while since I was here and thought I'd be a tad more polite...),

if companies truly are given the rights of individuals, perhaps we should take more notice of Joel Bakan's But obviously, even sociopaths have rights.

btw I think Wikipedia (which ironically is the cause of some of these superinjunction 'breaches') defines an injunction as a gagging order and a 'superinjunction' as a gagging order whose existence can't be published.

TSSCat@7, good points.

What about questions that impact on the public purse that seem to be permanently banned even from talking about talking about them? Sort of a cross between D-notices and super injunctions? I'll post more below as I'm sure a direct question will not pass through the mods filter.

I'm thinking royalty and paternity.

So this 'thread' remains open? Why?

Can I ask that if any of the witnesses is to be a newspaper editor, past or present, please can it not be Kelvin Mckenzie. Last time he was on, he basically came out saying "I want to gossip about everyone, so I must have the right to do so". We need someone of the calibre of the late Bill Deedes, rather than someone whose idea of a good newspaper story is along the lines of "Freddy Starr Ate My Hamster".

Or maybe "Freddie Starr pulled my hamstring"?

Hugh Grant is right about the consequences of standing against the press. The press are bullies and have long memories If they can't get you at the time, they will wait for their opportunity, even if that takes years. They will magnify any story they can against you. The police are similar. The police are similarly frightened of the press.

There is one solution that will deter the press. If the press are found to be wrong by the PCC or a court, and the victim wants it, then make the press give the same space and prominence to the retraction as they first gave to the false story. The content to be written by a journalist not employed by the news outlet concerned and not employed by that group. That will make the press think twice.

What would please me no end, would be to see the media, including the ´óÏó´«Ã½, provide us with stories of the private lives of those in the media. There was a media mogul who dumped his wife for a younger model. Had that been an MP then it would have been at the top of the news. In his case it was passed over other than being very politely reported.

It was only after his death that the media laid into Robert Maxwell. As far as I am concerned, until the media look to their own as well as to the Celebreties that they so often hound, I will have no respect for the 'Third Estate'.

Peter Gordon (16) - I think that you are an estate short.

On a more general note I think it a shame that this once entertaining blog has been allowed to deteriorate the way it has. With months of no real contribution from the PM programme itself, arbitrary closing of threads and no attempt at stimulating any discussion (remember the Sony Interactive Award anyone?) it is little wonder that this Privacy Commission stunt is attracting such little response.

Is it possible to make a comment for the privacy commission? I joined because I wanted to post a longer comment about my experience, but now I can't see anywhere to put it.