As the Guardian reports very recently:
The controversial former bank chief Sir Fred Goodwin is the latest high profile figure to obtain a superinjunction, it has emerged.
The existence of the measure — which bans the press from reporting that an injunction has been obtained — can be revealed after a backbench Liberal Democrat, John Hemming, raised the issue in the Commons.
"In a secret hearing this week Fred Goodwin has obtained a superinjunction preventing him being identified as a banker," said Hemming, the MP for Birmingham Yardley.
Hemming, who used parliamentary privilege to avoid the legal ban on reporting the use of superinjunctions, asked: "Will the government have a debate or a statement on freedom of speech and whether there's one rule for the rich like Fred Goodwin and one rule for the poor?"
News that Goodwin has obtained a superinjunction — over issues that cannot be reported — has raised further questions about the use of the measures.
Let's be clear - we don't really know what the super injunction was about.
What we do know is the rich can gag the press using such injunctions and libel laws.
And that undermines democracy.
Super injunctions must go and libel laws need radical reform.
Now.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Have to disagree with on parts of this Richard.
I agree that freedom of speech is absolutely required in a democracy. However, when we have a media as powerful as it is today, reporting needs to be accurate, proportionate and in the public interest. I’m not defending Fred Goodwin in any way – his conduct whilst at RBS speaks volumes, however, I do have faith that High Court Judges would only grant such an injunction if it was necessary and justified. The Media should not be allowed to print any old, unsubstantiated rumour and work on the principle that “it’s the first lie that people believe” (also, known as the Josef Goebbels Law of Propaganda).
I’m more than happy to be proved wrong if facts show otherwise, but until so everyone is entitled to privacy and to protection under the law. If we had a climate where the media thought twice before revealing something about someone and had to have demonstrable facts to show that the story was true or in the public interest then it would not come down to one law or the rich and another for the poor.
if the injunction is to prevent it being reported that he likes to dress as a teapot and have sex with a 1950’s sewing machine (for example) then i’m ok with that. the issue isn’t that the rich are able to protect themselves, it’s that the rest of us are not.
I absolutely agree. Nick Clegg has claimed that he is on the case with this. I detest Clegg and the destruction of the UK’s economic and social fabric that he is collaborating with the Tory-led govt to bring about. However, if he delivers sensible reform of the libel laws that will be one very small achievement (although hardly enough to offset all the other awful stuff he’s doing!)
http://newsthump.com/2011/03/10/fred-goodwin-super-injunction-forgot-to-prevent-his-identification-as-a-devious-prick/