These super-injunction thingumies ...

[Ooopsadaisy]

I must be very, very stupid but I just don't get it.

So footballer ABC takes legal action so no-one can talk about his misdemeanours. As I understand it, it also means that you can't even talk about the fact he has taken this action.

Drone-job journalist called Tony goes to his boss John.

Tony: - "John, I've discovered some dirty stuff on ABC shall we put in the paper?"

John:- "Er - no."

Tony: - "Why not? It's gold-dust!"

John: - "Er - I can't tell you."

So Tony goes to lunch and meets his mate Andy.

Andy: - "You looked pissed off, mate, what's up?"

Tony: - "I've got this story about ABC but John won't run with it."

Andy: - "Mmm, seems odd - wait a minute - he must be someone with one of these injunctions so you can't even mention that he's got an injunction!"

Tony: - "Yeah! That must be it. Here's Clare - Clare! Clare! - Guess what - we reckon ABC's got loads to hide because he must have one of those injunction thingies! Anyway - here's his secret cos I know I can trust you ..."

Clare: - "Cool. I'll ask around back at the office - someone there knows his cleaner."

Can you see where I'm going with this? Surely if you can't even mention his name then it automatically suggests something dodgy.

Also, what about if Tony gets pissed and tells the story at a party but he doesn't care about legal action against him cos he's dying anyway?

Aren't we all reasonably untraceable and anonymous to some degree so no-one knows who started an online website about ABC's liking for sex with gorillas at 60,000 feet?

Am I thick? What am I missing?

I guess loads of journalists know all about it, and there's probably nothing to stop them gossiping about it privately. But the injunction stops them from publishing it, so they can't put it in the paper or on the online news sites.

I don't know if it stops all journalists from gossiping online about it, I'm not sure how they could enforce that?

You are assuming that Tony finds out about it in the first place which he is much less likely to do if nobody is allowed to report things although it depends on what 'reporting' means. Does it mean you can put it on your FB page to your friends or does it mean any written communication of the facts like a private email because if so it isn't going to travel that far that quickly if it is only word of mouth?

It seems to failed in Andrew Marrs case though doesn't it?!

Niecie - but Tony is the journalist how found out. But he's prevented from telling the story because his boss knows there's an injunction......

..... actually .... there's another problem ....

If we're not supposed to know about the injunction, how do we know who we can't talk about?

God, I'm so confused .....

That's what I am saying -Tony would be less likely to find out unless ABC was very careless in which case spending money on a super injunction is a waste of time.

But you are right it does this to my head.

As I understand it, it wasn't meant for celebs to cover up their sordid little indiscretions but for businesses to keep their activities secret because sometimes any hint of trouble could bring down a perfectly adequate company if faith in it is destroyed.

Businesses to keep activities secret? Surely that's intereferring with the stock market isn't it? If a company hides or witholds information then they are deceiving investors/competitors surely?

It's like a kind of insider-dealing. Not knowing something important (or knowing it and not telling those who should know) is as potentially dangerous as knowing something you shouldn't, isn't it?

So who does know who (or what companies) have these injunctions?

Surely the public need to know if a company is hiding something big.

I think the idea is that a paper will always ring a celeb prior to publishing a story. They will then tell the paper about the injunction.

but if I know that footballer x (to avoid MN deleting this post) has been with a prostitute, and mention that here, I am not in trouble for breaching an injunction order because a) it's true and b) I am not aware of the injunction to stop this. No one can be bound by an injunction unless they have been notified of it's terms.

But then they know that they have an injunction and I thought that no-one was supposed to know.

I like the idea of that phone call, Collaborate!

"Hallo, may I speak to Katie Price, please?"

"Speaking."

"We've got a story we want to run about you .... "

"Yes! Yes! Print it and I'll get my tits out and marry someone and pout a lot ... would you like to watch me make a cup of tea and make a documentary of it ....."

I think in the case of companies, a super injunction stops information becoming knowledge which in the interim would damage the company without justification - it is only a temporary measure before it becomes apparent that company is in fact OK. I am wracking my brains for an example but struggling at the moment.

Another use of a super-injunction would be if you had injunction against an individual who was accused of a crime of obtaining something dishonestly and due to stand trial. The initial injunction would freeze their assets so they couldn't be disposed of before the person had been to trial. Then a super injunction would be necessary so that it did not become known that the individual had an injunction against them because, if it were publically known, any associates of the accused could get rid of any evidence of their links with the crime before there was the opportunity to establish sufficient evidence of their involvment with the accused so that they could be arrested top......if you see what I mean!!

That would be a perfectly justifable use of a super injunction. I think the reason they are being discussed now is that their use by celebs is not really in the spirit for which they were intended and they certainly don't seem temporary as the example above would be.

Thank you for trying to explain Niecie.

I remain utterly confused though.

Surely the speculation is as damaging (and possibly more so) than any tacky Sunday paper scoop story.

Also if actor A has "done a dirty deed" but everyone is wondering who he is then actors B, C and D could be harmed by speculation that it could be them. Also the other (gold-digging) parties still seem to be selling their stories without the names being used so they are still making money from their exploits and will continue to get the attention they clearly crave because of the on-going speculation that will ensue.

All seems like madness to me.