Joined: Oct '09
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 57 (M)
Posts: 667
Hi all. I don't know if any of our foreign mobsters have heard of these but heres a short explanation if you haven't.
Superinjucntions are injunctions taken out by the rich in this country to protect their privacy. Which could not be a bad thing except they cost £50k to take out through the courts and seem to me that they are taken out by people who have something, (of their own doing), to hide. These include having affairs while married, paying for hookers etc.
And the people who take them out are not even allowed to be identified. Unfortunatley the third party is.
On twitter persons unnamed have posted lists of who these people are, and also there are rumours in the press in the UK. Typical British press - not interested in real news just gossip, and to be fair I have to do a double take to see if they have got the latest football results right. Their reporting is not always the most accurate !!
Anyway a unamed Premier League footballer has now decided to sue twitter for letting its users publish this list on which he apparently appears. How on earth does he expect it to remain private, when he sues something as big as twitter, I mean I have a twitter account and it took me all of 30 seconds to find this list in the first place, I can't imagine the amount of tweets running after this has been announced. I cannot imagine for legal reasons that I am allowed to name the footballer, but just in case your interested and know a bit about the Premier League in UK, here goes:-
1. He is welsh 2. He plays for Man Utd 3. He has just won his 12th (I think) premier league title win Man Utd.
(English mobsters should now have a clue).
My whole point is - how can privacy been only a thing the rich can have?
I think we should all be entiltled to have some privacy, and therefore get rid of these stupid injunctions - If you have done something wrong, like an affair, then you have to pay for your misdemeanours as we all do - rich or not.
GL to all you mobsters..................
Administrator - I don't think I have broken any rules? If I have you will sort it for me I hope.
Joined: Mar '08
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 44 (M)
Posts: 6714
LOL, giggs ooopss thinks he can controll the internet with 50k...stump up 50 billion and your still not going to do it. Also its worth noting that the 50k only buys "privacy" in the UK, and Wales is not a real country anyway, I say we pay 50k and make him play for England. I myself think t should be illigal to make thses injunctions, its nothing short of a bribe, and a bribe to a judge at that, put him in jail....he can sleep with as many people as he likes then, and im sure no one will kiss and tell. The thing that makes me LOL is that the judge says "we" or the "internet" has got out of hand with reguards to gossip....GTF, I think taking £50k and telling the world you cant talk about something is way out of hand, can we all do that? GL suing twitter
Joined: May '08
Location: Sweden
Age: 55 (M)
Posts: 1362
There is an interesting concept called the Streisand-effect. I'm sure most of you are familiar with it, but for those that are not, in short: If you try to hush something down on the Internet, the amount of interest that creates, is in direct proportion with the effort you make.
Barbara Streisand tried to get a picture of her house of the Internet back in 2003, I think it was, with the result that the picture got like 440 000 wiews within a month. Even if she had herself sent it by email to every mailadresse in the world, I doubt she would have got that response. Everybody would have treated it as spam. But when she didn't want people to see it, Now, that's interesting!
Joined: Oct '09
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 57 (M)
Posts: 667
Hey Flipped - then that could be something we could shove in her load mouth - ugly cow that cheryl cole: Just an opinion - i wouldn't want to go there after 1/2 of the premier footballers in London.
really 
