its a bit tedious but some house of Lords geezer broke an injunction

[ScousyFogarty]

The BBC played the clip

BBC story here.

This isn't tedious - BBC says it is naming Sir Fred Goodwin as having an injunction preventing the revelation of an affair with an unnamed colleague during the run up to the collapse of the RBS. He said it was in the public interest to use Parliamentary privilege to state this as: "If true, it would be a serious breach of corporate governance and not even the Financial Services Authority would be allowed to know about it."

I think C4 news said the injunction has now been lifted.

An I think there is a genuine question, in the interests of the public, to know who this colleague was - not for salacious reasons, but because we need either a demonstrable assurance that the person was not involved in the events leading to the bank's crisis, or if that assurance cannot honestly be made, a proper investigation by the relevant authorities of what was really happening in the governance of the bank.

Just when you thought the opinion of bankers could not sink further.......

It's all over the newspapers this morning: example of front page headlines: "Betrayed his wife. Betrayed his country"

I think it's good that the news is out in the open. Yes, who knows what this 'senior employee' was responsible for and how it may or may not have affected the collapse of the bank if Goodwin was turning a blind eye for personal reasons. What I do find funny, however, is the idea that just because a man is involved in an affair, he couldn't possibly run a business at the same time.... LOL.

great headline in the Sun 'Royal Bonk of Scotland'

I'm less compelled by the lack of judgement argument than the conflict of interest argument. I think many well-balanced, trustworthy people successfully compartmentalise sexual preferences as completely separate from their attitude to deception more generally. It's different of course if the person in question is in a position where they are claiming moral superiority or insisting on high moral standards in others. Those people deserve to be outed as hypocrites. Just because Goodwin ran a bank I don't think it puts him in that category.

The member of the House of Lords deliberately broke the injunction as he cannot be prosecuted due to parliamentary privilege. Good on him.

Now their talking about banning the media reporting on commons debates were mps are talking about super injunctions this hs gone to far since when is it against the law for people to talk about their own sex life which actually happened shame on the justice system

If I have sex with someone weather their married or not its my sex life and I or any one should be able to tell who they like

Goodwin cost the rest of us something more than £40bn. AND got a multi-million pound pay-off from the taxpayer. He has no reputation to defend, which is why he went for 'privacy' not libel, the grasping little sod. Using our money to do it, as well.

If anything affected his judgment while he was running RBS into the ground, we are entitled to know. If he was behaving in a way that was not allowed under the company's policies, for instance. Or shagging someone responsible for assessing risk, or audit, or governance. Unless Mrs Goodwin knew, if the allegations are true, he was certainly behaving in a dishonest manner.

I remember some extremely kind people on here, when he was first exposed, feeling sorry for him and justifying him having the police guarding his home on the grounds that his kids might be bullied. When actually a. he'd caused the problem, he could have used some of his ill-gotten gains to sort it out and b. turns out he had been betraying his family all along (if the allegations are true).

'If I have sex with someone weather their married or not its my sex life and I or any one should be able to tell who they like'

I agree Maypole, I am absolutely ENRAGED by this.

you would think someone's human rights would be breached by not being allowed to talk about their own experiences.
it would be so psychologically damaging to be forced to keep secrets.

I can see a case for silencing people if their talking would mean that someone else's life was in danger, but this just seems to put the rights of the rich above the rights of the poor.

Quite, Sybil. And it's outrageous that they grant these injunctions without giving the opposing party the right to speak. Imogen Thomas denies she was blackmailing him - why grant the injunction before she has a chance to defend herself? Surely it's libellous to claim she's a blackmailer?

One of the injunctions granted specifically stated it was applied the whole world - what arrogance! Like one of those kid's letters that ends 'firstname last name, X street, X town, England, Europe, the world, the universe'.

I do hope Twitter tells the English judge to swivel. Why should the 'privacy' rights of a British celebrity who has been up to no good outweigh the privacy rights of Twitter users? Why does the right to private life outweigh the right to freedom of expression - both are equal rights under the Human Rights Act?

it's the idea of wealthy people being able to promote delusion and that being enforced by law so that reality is squashed. So creepy.
we are supposed to be a less hypocritical society than the Victorians but here is a MASSIVE bit of hypocrisy.

I think (hope) Twitter could ignore the UK courts - they are an American site based in America where the constitution protects freedom of speech. Surely the UK courts can't override that?

The legal system in the country is a complete arse. The press are not allowed to report on who Fred Goodwin or some footballer were shagging but they can print absolutely disgusting accusations about Milly Dowler's grieving parents.

The footballer who is suing Twitter (and yes, the whole country knows who he is) is making a total tit of himself. It would have been on the front page of N.O.W for one day and then everyone would have forgotten about it but instead we have had months of speculation over his affair. He needs to grow up.

Giddy, I meant that I suspect Twitter can tell the UK judge to take a running jump because they are protected by the US Constitution guarantee of freedom of speech. So (I think) they don't have to disclose the identity. And according to the Guardian today, if Mr Shagging Around Footballer's lawyers try to pursue Twitter in California, they will have to disclose the name of their client.

(Twitter doesn't have to disclose the identity of Tweeters, I mean.)

Are you sure? I thought they did give out data if properly ordered by a court so to do. It might take a while, but if the individual did obtain a US court order for those records then they will be handed over.