Schrödinger's law

Yesterday I wrote about the Futility of a certain person's actions.

Today he was named in Parliament by John Hemmings MP. However, the injunciton itself remains in place.

As the Guardian point out on their Politics live blog:

6.53pm: We are in the realms of the bizarre. In strict legal terms, I can't name the subject of the injunction that has just been upheld. The injunction prevents that. If I am only reporting details if the injunction, no names can be mentioned. But if I move on, as I am doing in this sentence, to reporting the proceedings of parliament, I can quite legally tell you that an MP today named the footballer Ryan Giggs as the subject of an injunction relating to a Twitter privacy row.

6.57pm: The third hearing today was held in front of Mr Justice Tugendhat. According to my colleague Josh Halliday, who was at the high court, he said: "It is obvious that if the purpose [of the injunction] was to protect a secure then it would have now failed – but as it is to do with harassment it has not failed."

Tugendhat conceded that Giggs's anonymity had been lost. But he said the injunction was about harassment, not just privacy. He said John Hemming's question in parliament today serves to "increase, not decrease, the strength of his [Giggs] case that he needs protection." The judge went on to say: "If a court can stop one person or five people [from harassing Giggs] – not 50,000 – is there not something to be achieved?"

I've decided to call this Schrödinger's law after the famous physics theory. Tweet

Futility

Any lawyer knows that the Laws of England & Wales only extend to, well, England and Wales, i.e. they do not cover anywhere else in the world.

Therefore, an injunction taken out in the English Courts cannot be enforced in say, Scotland, without a separate set of proceedings taking place there and those proceedings being granted.

Currently there is an injunction out against anyone naming a certain Premier League football player who has - allegedly - been cheating on his wife, with a woman known as Imogen Thomas.

The Guardian is published in London and Manchester, i.e. within England, and so is bound by the injunction.

However, Scottish newspapers are not bound, nor is anyone publishing within the US.

This results in situations such as this which the paper justifies elsewhere [I've decided against actually publishing the photo]:

The Guardian has a article about this action, yet states

The Scottish newspaper, which the Guardian cannot name for legal reasons, devoted its front page to a large picture of the footballer's face, with a black band across his eyes and the word "censored" in capital letters. The player is easily recognisable.

The BBC is also similarly bound yet it names the newspaper in question, as does Sky News.The Daily Mail also shows what a ludicrous situation we have.

What will the effect be in the future? The Guardian goes into some detail.

As a simple matter of practicality, this situation cannot and will not last.

UPDATE: Co-incidentally, Love & Garbage - a Scottish lawyer - wrote a similar article from a Scots Law point of view at the same time. You should read that too. Tweet

A list of "Superinjunctions"?

You've probably been following the recent "Superinjunction" developments...

Via the Super Injunction Blog, comes this spreadsheet.

Apparently it lists people who are subject to privacy injunctions.

Some are clearly correct, because they've been lifted.

Others appear to be based on nothing more than speculation and rumour.

In any event, I'd recommend this article in the Daily Star which has loads more.

UPDATE: I forgot to say, if you're going to cheat on - usually - your wife, you've only got yourself to blame if someone tries to tell the press.

The simple way to deal with his situation - even simpler than going to Court to gag the media - is not to cheat on them! Tweet

... has a question for Boris Johnson

Last night Boris Johnson wrote this on his Twitter page:

AV distraction over. Now let's concentrate on jobs, growth and making the most of the Olympicsless than a minute ago via web Favorite Retweet ReplyBoris Johnson
MayorOfLondon

In response I asked him this question:

@MayorOfLondon I must be missing something. How did the AV referendum get in the way of the other 3?less than a minute ago via TweetDeck Favorite Retweet ReplyGareth Winchester
dnotice

After seeing another post on his Twitter page, I asked him again:

@MayorOfLondon Oh good, you're up. Would you be willing to answer my question about the claims you made last night? http://is.gd/Qchrf8less than a minute ago via TweetDeck Favorite Retweet ReplyGareth Winchester
dnotice

I have yet to receive a response.

It is clear that he does respond to people, but for whatever reason he has decided not to respond to me.

This is not a way to encourage people to vote for you instead of the only real alternative in next year's Mayoral Elections... Tweet

Pinocchio

A couple of weeks ago a did a detailed post about the AV referendum.

I've decided to do another one.  This will only be a short one, but a lot more personal.

Earlier today a friend - a Lib Dem voter - posted on Facebook that she voted No to AV.

I said to her "How come?"

I was expecting something along the lines of that she wanted some form of Proportional Representation, which, as I said before, I have some sympathy for.

This is her reply:

I do not want parties such as the BNP coming in 4th but then getting elected. It is an expensive and complex system. I don't like it.

I responded giving links to the BNP and £250 million claims and to the AV flow-chart.

As a result, the No campaign as one vote more than it should do. I feel that it is likely - given the claims that they have made - that there are more who've voted the same way.

I would not have a problem if - as appears likely - AV is rejected, if the anti-AV campaign had based their position on facts. However, they have not.

They've based their campaign on nothing but blatant lies, condescension and misleading propaganda, yet are likely to win.

People do not like being treated in this way, especially when it's so obvious.

They, their funders and their backers have not won.

Keep at it Yes to Fairer Votes and the Electoral Reform Society. You will win in the long-run.

UPDATE: This post by Mark Reckons goes into more detail. Tweet

I never wanted to see anybody die, but there are a few obituary notices I have read with pleasure

[headline courtesy of Clarence Darrow]

You've probably heard that Osama Bin Laden is dead.*

I was going to write something about what happens next.

However, this post on the UK Human Rights Blog says what I was going to say.

All I should add is that I guess I can retire the blog's "TWAT" tag, and that this caption sums up the past week:

* Assuming you're not one of the types who think that it's very suspicious that he's been buried at sea in order to conceal the evidence.

UPDATE: See also, this article on Comment is Free.

UPDATE: Also this from Primly Stable on Twitter:

Coming next on Fox News: Black man admits guilt in shooting death of frail religious leader #OBLless than a minute ago via Twitter for BlackBerry® Favorite Retweet ReplyPrimly Stable
PrimlyStable

I've nothing further to add. Tweet