Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Paying for your sins

The wonderful world of the super injunction is currently being batted around the MSM and the blogosphere at the moment as various people question why such things are needed in our modern world and why the UK courts seem to have so much power and have even attempted to gag Parliament. There is even some debate as to whether or not a super injunction is worth the effort, certainly you can't hide the fact that one has been taken out even if it's illegal to mention who is involved. Take out a super injunction and people will go digging for the truth, it may not get published in the UK, but it certainly will elsewhere and it's perfectly possible to read it up on the internet and the foreign press are just as interested in the salacious details of our celebs as their own. Though frankly which celeb is cheating on their partner is of no great interest to me, though it does seem to be of great interest to a large chunk of the X Factor watching crowd. I'm a bit more interested in the Carter Ruck's of this world who try to hide what companies like Trafigura are doing and who even had the nerve to try and gag our Parliament to keep it quiet.
So I have to wonder in what circumstances a gagging order (or super injunction) is really necessary and the only circumstances I can think it might be suitable is to protect the innocent and Trafigura certainly weren't innocent, nor were the celebs who got caught with their pants down both male and female. It does seem as if justice is for sale in the UK, or at least a certain type of justice, where those caught doing something they shouldn't be can if they have enough cash, prevent the publication of their crimes or sins to the public and this cannot be right. Celebs live in the spotlight, they have to learn that different rules apply and if they cheat they're likely to get more headline space than the average guy/gal on the street, but that's part of the price of fame, you get followed by paparazzi. As for the Trafiguras of this world, you should have no right to hide what is essentially a crime of dumping toxic waste of the Ivory Coast with both sets of circumstances it's a case of if you don't want publicity like that, don't do it.
What you shouldn't be able to do is silence by legal means the fact that you've been caught.

1 annotations:

DerekP said...

You've clearly laid out the issue - I wonder why can't the judge$ understand?