United Kingdom
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
view the rest of the comments
Never in my wildest dreams would I have imagined that this is legal in a so-called democracy.
This is the part that got me:
Fuck you government, I'll say what I want. I wouldn't be able to stop myself from talking to a journalist the next day
I'd bring the malicious compliance in force.
"Hi Mr. Journalist. You should take a look at this injunction the court laid on me. I'm an unable to speak to you about this, but you can read it yourself. I'd be glad to come on TV and talk about how I can't talk about this."
The thing is the injunction also prevents anyone who knows about it from publicising it. Even taxpolicy.org.uk here are on very shaky ground, and they explicitly didn't publish parts of the order.
Her MO can discuss it in Parliament without any repercussions.
Yes but she can't discuss it with her MP.
I read something on the BBC site last night about this and Jemima Goldsmith.
I thought it said JG had obtained the injunction and not RB.
That sounds like a different injunction?
This injunction was by Russell Brand and against his accuser, Sylvie Berki, who couldn't afford a lawyer and represented herself against him, and the judge basically steamrolled her and bankrupted her. The injunction explicitly spelled out who she can discuss it with and the list is very short.
It does seem like this specific judge had a problem with litigants-in-person, and he was acting against specific guidance on how to treat them. Regardless, his injunction against her still stands.
Quiet word with the local MP so they can ask about it as PMQs
Bold of you to assume the local MP wasn’t a friend/fan of Russell too
So a reform MP then? They probably all shower WhatsApp group.
Don't forget the bit where it explicitly names the only doctors she's allowed to speak to about this, who don't work at her GP surgery anymore. So she can't speak to a doctor about any of this except in an emergency.
I haven't seen Obsession, so I don't know the plot, but...
I think it's more of a V for Vendetta sort of situation.
That's because it's a so-so Democracy.
Superinjunctions were popular at the time but are less used now. Case in point with the current proceedings brought by a Very Famous Person who wishes to restrain two news orgs from reporting serious allegations about him from several women (and from them coming forward otherwise), on the basis that he will commit suicide if it becomes public and this is a breach of his human right to life.
Back in the 2010s this would be a superinjunction with no-one even allowed to mention there is a case before the court, and the Very Famous Person even tried to supress that the news orgs in question were the Guardian and ITN, but he was refused that, and indeed his attempt at an injunction was denied on tuesday, on the basis that his mental health was up to the NHS which has him in secure detention, not up to the news media. He was given leave to appeal but unless that goes forward the stories will run.
So things have changed a bit.