Our Lips Are Sealed (slight return). Or Superinjunction, on and on and on...

It's the story that won't lie down.  Big Brother 'star' Imogen Thomas has been back in court seeking to get the superinjunction stopping her publishing details of her affair with a footballer, amid counter claims of blackmail demands.

She lost.  The footballer - whose identity is already known to anyone who wants to know - won.  They sound like lovely people.

Meanwhile Lord Stoneham, the Liberal Democrat peer (yes, you know, that Lord Stoneham - er no, me neither) waded into the whole mess naming former Royal Bank of Scotland Chief Executive Fred Goodwin as having taken out a superinjunction to prevent publication of his affair with another high profile banker at the time RBS was collapsing.

The argument used by Lord Stoneham is that Goodwin's affair meant the CEO did not have his mind on his job at the time RBS collapsed and required bailing out with tax payers money.

A very weak arguement in my book. It looks like a case of using Parliamentary privilege to blow a hole in superinjunctions as a whole.  Fine.  A laudable aim and Lord Stoneham picked a good target.  Even if it feels a bit like 'we can't get you for anything else Fred, so let's at least embarrass you in public.'  Still there are lawyers all over the radio complaining about it, so Lord Stoneham must have done something right!

Is this what Nick Clegg means by 'muscular liberalism'?

Our Lips Are Sealed

It seems this is all it takes to grab the news headlines in our celebrity obsessed media...

...these six tweets seem to be dominating today's news.  I've edited out the names of the actors, TV presenters, footballer and TV chef that are mentioned.  Not because of the super injunctions or the claim that some of the names are not correct.  I just can't be bothered to feed the profiles of these z list 'celebrities'.

If you do want to know, a quick Google of 'super injunction Twitter' should sate your curiosity.  But that isn't really the point, I couldn't give a monkey's about what people off the telly are doing behind closed doors.  The worry is that this kind of legal gagging order is becoming common place for those that can afford it.

And while I don't care what chefs, actors and footballers get up to off duty, I do care what MP's and oil companies are doing that prompts allegations that they also take out this kind of super injunction.

Have already seen at least one member of the legal profession claiming that super injunctions are not the provision of the rich / famous / influential, on TV today, but are open to us all.  Which is interesting, when injunctions covering two famous people seem to cover both parties, while other injunctions only offer protection to one side, while the other is left in the media spotlight to fend off questions s/he is not allowed to answer.  

It's a situation that will only get worse if the proposed changes to legal aid go through, warping the legal system even more.  You remember that?  The thing we're all supposed to be equal before...

I'm not in favour of a privacy law per se, far too much already goes on without multinational corporations, politicians or any of the people who have real influence over our lives being answerable for their actions. While rumours abound on the 'net, the truth gets lost in the kerfuffle.

The current situation is rapidly becoming a farce.  Unless of course you're one of the lawyers involved - they just keep charging by the hour!

Further reading:

not sure how long this will last, but some interesting reading and, the The Guardian's most recent comment on the whole issue, which they've been looking at for some time.