Re: McCann tweets journalist told to reveal source

by plebgate 25.02.15 16:02

Dr What wrote:Does any one on this forum know the answer to the question just posted?

How long does a super-inaudible last? Is it forever? Does it have to be reviewed or reapplied for every so often?

Presumably an injunction can last for as long as the person can afford to keep it going. I have read that they are very expensive to keep in place.

Haven't seen this link before, but I thought it was very interesting:

http://www.theguardian.com/law/datablog/2011/aug/05/superinjunctions-gagging-orders-injunctions-list

by comperedna 25.02.15 16:11

Good lord... its is all about the extra-marital affairs of the rich and famous and the risk blackmail connected with them. Who'd have thought it!

by plebgate 25.02.15 16:15

comperedna wrote:Good lord... its is all about the extra-marital affairs of the rich and famous and the risk blackmail connected with them. Who'd have thought it!

There is one case on the list where criminal activity had been alleged. Who knows how it all works, and they cannot even say how many super injunctions are in place.

It's all in place for the rich - it seems that money sure does talk still.

by Guest 25.02.15 16:32

So the MCs are paying - or supporters/Fund - to suppress any information being published?

by ultimaThule 25.02.15 20:26

Dr What wrote:Does any one on this forum know the answer to the question just posted?

How long does a super-inaudible last? Is it forever? Does it have to be reviewed or reapplied for every so often?

Injunctions granted by the civil courts typically last for 6 months, after which further application(s) can be made to extend for a similar period.

Those High Court injunctions obtained by footballers (Ryan Giggs?) and the like which have come to public knowledge will have cost in the region of £100-120,000 a throw with a further 50-60 grand or so every 6 months for as long as required.

However, those with more sense than money can obtain similar results by utilising the services of counsel whose fees are considerably less than their more high ~~falutin~~ flying colleagues.

by Guest 25.02.15 20:30

ultimaThule - how much do you estimate the Mcs have paid out so far for their super-inaudible?

by ultimaThule 25.02.15 20:52

Ftr, a so-called 'super injunction' is a legal gagging order which forbids public disclosure of information on a particular issue and also any disclosure of the existence of the injunction itself.

Given the McCanns' penchant for ~~hot shot~~ expensive lawyers and the figures I've given on the previous page, to have kept such an injunction in place for the past 8 years would have cost some £8-900,000, Lir.

That said, there's no sign of any such expenditure in the McCanns' limited company's accounts and, while it may be that non-uncle Brian Kennedy has been digging deep into his capacious pockets to fund legal action of this nature, it seems to me more probable that other factors have prevailed.

by RogerRabbit 28.02.15 17:50

Assuming, of course, that the Mcs would be the initiators of a supernoodle... Its remotely possible that they've ended up becoming the object of a supernoodle set in motion by someone else, or simply become a beneficiary of one.

Perhaps the media themselves were not the intended victims of a noodle, but by the nature of the supernoodle they became subject to one anyway, and became equally limited by the 'super' part of the supernoodle.

by whatsupdoc 02.03.15 9:05

RogerRabbit wrote:Assuming, of course, that the Mcs would be the initiators of a supernoodle... Its remotely possible that they've ended up becoming the object of a supernoodle set in motion by someone else, or simply become a beneficiary of one.

Perhaps the media themselves were not the intended victims of a noodle, but by the nature of the supernoodle they became subject to one anyway, and became equally limited by the 'super' part of the supernoodle.

That's a lot of Noodles big grin

by RogerRabbit 02.03.15 9:51

whatsupdoc wrote:
That's a lot of Noodles

Sure is, but I understand they're a tastier alternative to prison food, albeit more expensive.

by whatsupdoc 02.03.15 10:01

Some court cases shouldn't be published in newspapers but I think all these injunctions are so highly priced that many can't afford them. They should cost just a minimum amount and not a rediculously exhorbitant figure to allow the rich to buy their way out of trouble.
Easier still, the Judge could just say not for publication with high penalties for a breach.

by Guest 02.03.15 13:04

Roger Rabbit

Are you saying what I think you are saying?

That dark forces noodled themselves up, dragging the unsuspecting Mecs with them, into the bargain?

If that were so, is not the question then: What the H''l is really going on in this world?

30 years after 1984, to boot!

by RogerRabbit 08.03.15 13:18

Portia wrote:Roger Rabbit

Are you saying what I think you are saying?

That dark forces noodled themselves up, dragging the unsuspecting Mecs with them, into the bargain?

If that were so, is not the question then: What the H''l is really going on in this world?

30 years after 1984, to boot!

I wouldn't use the word 'unsuspecting.'

The McCann's know exactly what they did or didn't do. They know exactly what they deserve or don't deserve. And they also know that their importance in the scheme of things is marginal. I wouldn't even say that the 'forces' that might have noodled up are necessarily inherently 'dark' ones... A supernoodle could simply be a measure intended to protect the children until they're adults. As I said, someone somewhere could well be directly protecting the Mc's, but by the same token they could well be indirectly protecting them - and they themselves might not be the object of this kind of legal protection, it's just that it makes a nice, quiet advantage to be able to bask in the good grace of protection. Protecting them might simply be a byproduct, a lesser of two or more evils.

It was just a thought. Nothing I'm claiming, or would hang my hat on.

Here's a shocking idea... Would it be possible, given the secret nature of a supernoodle, that someone behind a media corporation could financially facilitate a supernoodle protecting certain people, taken out to all appearances by a 'supporter' of theirs, but actually intended to simply prevent EVERY media outlet from reporting certain things, while the shadowy originator of the scheme knew EXACTLY when he was going to have the supernoodle relinquished and therefore just when to turn his attack dogs, and release a hidden cache of accusation upon which he's been sitting for some time? As I read it, supernoodles are not taken out per se in 'national interest' or 'out of the kindness of a judge's heart.' As such, it would seem, that they are literally the tool - one way or another - of whoever set them in place. They stay in place as long as you maintain them, and as far as I know they can be challenged, and at the same time the initiator could conveniently fail to uphold the supernoodle, causing it to lapse as it is no longer being defended.

by j.rob 08.03.15 13:48

Here's a shocking idea... Would it be possible, given the secret nature of a supernoodle, that someone behind a media corporation could financially facilitate a supernoodle protecting certain people, taken out to all appearances by a 'supporter' of theirs, but actually intended to simply prevent EVERY media outlet from reporting certain things, while the shadowy originator of the scheme knew EXACTLY when he was going to have the supernoodle relinquished and therefore just when to turn his attack dogs, and release a hidden cache of accusation upon which he's been sitting for some time? As I read it, supernoodles are not taken out per se in 'national interest' or 'out of the kindness of a judge's heart.' As such, it would seem, that they are literally the tool - one way or another - of whoever set them in place. They stay in place as long as you maintain them, and as far as I know they can be challenged, and at the same time the initiator could conveniently fail to uphold the supernoodle, causing it to lapse as it is no longer being defended.

-------

This is why I have a faint hope that the Mc case police investigation will not just be a total whitewash. If the intention was to whitewash, why would it have dragged on so long? The case could have remained shelved. Or they could have found a (dead, preferably) pimple/bogy/paedo/tractor man and blamed him. Then just closed the case.

Okay, a lot of people would know it was a whitewash. But then they happen all the time. Kelly, Princess Di probably, the spy in the suitcase, Jill Dando. And these are just the high profile ones. Imagine how many not so high profile cases are whitewashed.

Rupert has his hands all over this, imo, and there are massive financial considerations therein. The very early involvement of the press was very suggestive of a pre-planned hoax, imo.

If, as I suspect, at least part of this case is/was tied in with a pre-planned media hoax, then it becomes more understandable why there has been such a high level cover-up. Given that Murdoch, Blair, Rebekah et al were so very cozy.

There could be supernoodles all over the place!

The Mcs and their friends messed up the script I am sure. I just wish I could work out exactly where TV director Jez Wilkins fits into all this? I wonder if he was hoping to get rich off the story. But when the Mcs messed up the script he bailed out. And his consolation prize was C4 Big Fat Gypsy Wedding.

Just an idea.

Latest topics