Hyper-Injunctions Right or Wrong

'Hyper-injunction' stops you talking to MP - Telegraph

I thought that parliament made the rules and the Courts interpretated the Law.

 

A V Dicey must be spinning in his grave.

 

R-C I expected something a bit more meaty and insightful in your response particularly since it is your area of expertise - a bit disappointed ...... but there is still time to redeem yourself!

 

Sorry that I have a real job and cannot spend my days trawling the internet to satisfy you!

 

I guess the answer rather depends on if your a polluting multinational corporation, a philandering footballer or a whistleblower or investigative reporter.

 

Given that M'Learned friends do very well out of all this kind of thing don't expect them or the Camp followers to come rushing to the barricades to condemn it.

 

So there is a way forward for Wikileaks after all.

 

Ooooooooooooooh get you!

 

Those pots won't wash themselves, you know.

 

No they wont so double away smartly lad.

 

The details of exactly what took place before this particular court cases aren't clear ie was the case disproven, was it malicious, etc but as a principle it is absolutely wrong that effectively a person can be stopped from either taking legal advice or speaking to his MP on any subject. I don't know of any "privacy/privelege" between a MP and constituent so anything said or presented would presumably already be subject to libel and other laws.

IMD

 

Surely, there must be an avenue whereby issues that concern society as a whole should be able to be discussed especially if there is likely to be an impact. Do Super injunctions take presedence over matters discussed in the House and should matters discussed with MP's be subject to a judges interpretation of the law, which after all must be enacted by Paliament and the Crown. Who regulates the regulators? Most judges are probably playing the stock markets and own shares in business, they are probably extremelly well paid, and have a vested interest in business.
I don't believe that all Judges are tarred with the same brush, the same as all politicians aren't bent, just the majority.
But to a layman it seems wrong the the law bends to suit the depth of ones pocket.

 

Your suggestions regarding the impartiality of judges is just shit-slinging, and I can only assume that you believe that if you sling enough of it, a little will stick. I'm sure that you have some evidence to show where judges have shown themselves not to be disinterested, and look forward to you showing us.

However, from my own, personal, limited experience of the coating of potable water tanks in submarines, I do seem to recall that there were problems around ten years ago with the application of certain coatings, where if the coating was cured incorrectly, there was evidence to show that age degradation took place allowing the release of toxins. As a result of this, the RN moved away from the use of this type of coating, manufactured by Hempel, iirc, to a low solvent high solid coating, and there are official papers and reports which document this. Why do I remember this? There is a suggestion that there may be long-term health effects, and I know that the INM have detailed information about this, so if I or any of my shipmates should suffer from what may be poisoning induced by this coating, then we would be able to seek redress. Obviously, as there has been a complete blackout on this, I cannot possibly know if the injunction in question has any connection to what I have written here, i.e. that Hempel produced paint for potable water tanks on ships, and that the RN stopped using those products when it became obvious that they were releasing toxins into the drinking water.

Hope this helps someone.

 

The Insider - Corrupt British judges exposed in corruption and blackmail scandal

Didn't particularly want to "sling shit" at our Judiciary, merely speculated that having salaries of £200,000 High Court Judge, plus expenses which remain unpublished, but the cost of which rose by £3million alone in 2006 (Guardian). They may have vested interests in granting hyper-injunctions So is there an independant adjudicator.
There are good and bad in all professions, all are open to corruption. The entire thrust of the argument is "Hyper injunctions". which stops the subject of the hyper injunction being discussed. Even with your MP
In your response you state about the paint used in tanks holding drinking water. You believe that INM have all the reports in case you contract an illness attributable to the paint used in those tanks. Suppose the technician who found out about the paint degregation was gagged by a Hyper-injunction, in consequence the company covered up the problem. Where does that leave you.

 

the case you linked to was an extraordinary case, as stated in your linked article. Did I misunderstand when you said "I don't believe that all Judges are tarred with the same brush... just the majority."

That leaves me with the several official RN documents which detail why the paint scheme was changed, the knowledge of what they are (Warpaint and BR820 for example) and what they say. No injunction could prevent these things being discussed in court, though it may have to be held in camera. For the hell of it, I would even call as a witness the bloke whom this super-injunction was taken out against.

 

Joe, you don't misunderstand me when I say that the "majority", and in retrospect, with that comment probably should have posted it in Diamond Lils. I personally have had no dealings with the judiciary, so don't have an axe to grind. I do find it extraordanary that some judgement which relate to societies health and safety, should be the subject of hyper-injunctions.STOP PRESS Have to go daughter now in labour.

 

And what on earth has party politics got to do with it?

Hope all goes well with the birth and she isn't in "Labour" for too long

 

Hyper Injunctions Request copy of BR820 SEND TO [email protected] Hi Guys

Hi Guys

any one wish and want to assist me obtaining a copy of said file BR 820 ALL REPLIES IN CONFIDENCE and yes if any wish to call me as a witness if you think you may have been subject to toxic drinking water please feel free to contact me directly.

As a matter of urgency if you can direct me in the direction all help is appreciated

kind regards

Brian Bradford

 

contact [email protected]

request copy of file BR 820

 

And so the story continues. A judge censors the internet, but only in the UK: Superinjunction scores legal first for nameless financier in libel action | Law | The Guardian

OK didn't really follow all of the thread above but I've drank water on pussers ships quite a lot, am I due some sort of payout a la tort class action?