(Not-super) injunction, and names

TTony

robgilmo said:

So , basically some dude was accused of sexual harassment and the courts said his identity should remain a secret? 

Actually, the harassed parties agreed that his - and their - identities should remain a secret.

robgilmo said:

Is he guilty?

Who knows, nothing ever went to court.

robgilmo said:

If so fuck that, people need to know who this person is.

Why?  What "people"?  What will they do with the knowledge?  


But putting all of your fallacious comments aside, if "people need to know", I think they'll manage to find out without needing to visit a guitar forum.

robgilmo

TTony said:

robgilmo said:

So , basically some dude was accused of sexual harassment and the courts said his identity should remain a secret? 

Actually, the harassed parties agreed that his - and their - identities should remain a secret.

robgilmo said:

Is he guilty?

Who knows, nothing ever went to court.

robgilmo said:

If so fuck that, people need to know who this person is.

Why?  What "people"?  What will they do with the knowledge?  


But putting all of your fallacious comments aside, if "people need to know", I think they'll manage to find out without needing to visit a guitar forum.

If he was guilty of sexual harassment, and his identity was kept from the public, it makes it easier for a sexual harasser to do it again, put it this way, if your daughter or wife came home on day crying and said they had been sexually harassed and you later found out it could have been prevented had the harassers identity been known it might be a bitter pill to swallow.


But , as you say , it was never proven, it never went to court, I cant help thinking though , if there was money involved, was that part of the identity hiding? Here , have x amount to go away, dont mention this to anyone.

ICBM

The thing that makes this case important is that the named person has apparently used Non-Disclosure Agreements to silence allegations of a possible criminal nature, and that's what the Telegraph has been investigating and would have published without the injunction. I agree with Peter Hain that it should be in the public domain - because of the questions it raises about the use of NDAs. Which to be fair, Theresa May has said the government will look at.

It's totally different to reporting an affair between two minor celebrities, which is the last time Parliamentary Privilege was used like this I think.

digitalscream

Gagaryn said:

digitalscream said:

Gagaryn said:

I appreciate the reasons for the site admins' caution, but I find this quite Orwellian.

The whole interweb, in fact the whole world is discussing 'a thing' and tFB is quivering in a corner.

This is bizarre.

Funny how you're happy to say that when you're not the one who has to deal with the legal implications of all the bullshit folk spout on here because they think they're immune. You're also not the one who has to assume the legal liability for said bullshit.

So, if you think you're so hard done to by this policy, you're welcome to piss off and discuss it on any of those other sites.

That is uncalled for.

I noted that I appreciate your caution. 

Really no need to resort to telling people to piss off. That is an overreaction.

Given that you persist in pushing me on it, after being the first person to ignore a direct instruction in the other thread and despite having been told more than once...I think I'm being quite patient.

For clarity, this is not "quivering in a corner". It's getting on for the last time I'm going to waste my time (and I've wasted a lot of it) dealing with idiots who think they should be able to say what they want on here regardless of the law. When the last time happens, it's fairly likely that the site will go dark, having become more hassle to run than it's worth.

So...now might be a good time to consider exactly how desperate you are to discuss this guy's name here.

TTony

ICBM said:

The thing that makes this case important is that the named person has apparently used Non-Disclosure Agreements to silence allegations of a possible criminal nature, and that's what the Telegraph has been investigating and would have published without the injunction.

They are Non-Disclosure Agreements.

Binding contracts, entered into between consenting parties, each of whom would have had legal advice (because otherwise they are not binding).  So, the named person has not "used" NDAs to silence allegations.  The parties concerned have reached an agreement whereby those allegations will not be examined in legal process.  

Is it all messy and distasteful?  Yes.

Have some - potentially - injured parties accepted money in lieu of "justice"?  Potentially.

Have their actions enable further trangressions?  Again, potentially, but that was their #ImAllrightJacqueline rather than #MeToo choice.

Do we (the forum) want to get into those discussions?  No.

Garthy

I’m convinced many chippy cunts on this forum would happily fuck over many innocent people just to get their pound of flesh from  just one rich person. 

Heartfeltdawn

Fretwired said:

The man in question is strongly denying it and getting his lawyers on the case .. I wonder if Peter Hain  is wrong. The law firm at the centre of this case is more associated with another businessman rather than the accused.

In relation to the above you are OK once it's in the public domain. If the BBC's lawyers have OK'd it we're OK - just say "according to the BBC...". We are small fish and a court would through action against this forum out. Every major newspaper is covering it.

They are indeed. Had a look at the emails tonight sent out by the Times legal team today courtesy of the other half. Tight journalistic guidelines for reporting indeed. 

robgilmo

Garthy said:

I’m convinced many chippy cunts on this forum would happily fuck over many innocent people just to get their pound of flesh from  just one rich person. 

And Im convinced some rich people use their status and wealth to fuck over innocent victims then think paying them off will keep their pound of flesh a secret so they can go and do it again.

Tell me this guys, because I dont really follow the news, were they just accusations or were they facts based on evidence?

Gagaryn

digitalscream said:

Gagaryn said:

digitalscream said:

Gagaryn said:

I appreciate the reasons for the site admins' caution, but I find this quite Orwellian.

The whole interweb, in fact the whole world is discussing 'a thing' and tFB is quivering in a corner.

This is bizarre.

Funny how you're happy to say that when you're not the one who has to deal with the legal implications of all the bullshit folk spout on here because they think they're immune. You're also not the one who has to assume the legal liability for said bullshit.

So, if you think you're so hard done to by this policy, you're welcome to piss off and discuss it on any of those other sites.

That is uncalled for.

I noted that I appreciate your caution. 

Really no need to resort to telling people to piss off. That is an overreaction.

Given that you persist in pushing me on it, after being the first person to ignore a direct instruction in the other thread and despite having been told more than once...I think I'm being quite patient.

For clarity, this is not "quivering in a corner". It's getting on for the last time I'm going to waste my time (and I've wasted a lot of it) dealing with idiots who think they should be able to say what they want on here regardless of the law. When the last time happens, it's fairly likely that the site will go dark, having become more hassle to run than it's worth.

So...now might be a good time to consider exactly how desperate you are to discuss this guy's name here.

I am not pushing you on anything, I think you may have misconstrued what I meant by my post above.

My comment on the deleted thread was after the individual had been named under parliamentary privilege. My assumption had been that it was then fair game to repeat his name. I realise now that the situation is not that straightforward and I accept that - I think you did the right thing by deleting my comment and that thread.

I continue to think though that this is a bizarre and Orwellian situation that we find ourselves in - having to pseudo-deny the existence of knowledge.

And I'll repeat - I appreciate your caution and accept that we need to continue not to mention 'he who will not be named'. That is what I meant by 'quivering in a corner'. Re-reading that comment, and from your reaction, I think you may have thought that I was implying the admins were needlessly shitting themselves. I wasn't suggesting that.

And in case my comments continue to be misconstrued - I am not pressing you to change your mind on this - I think you need to side with caution. You just don't need to be so bloody rude with it.

And I do appreciate the work you put into keeping this site going - it's a thankless task and must be bloody hard work.

Heartfeltdawn

Garthy said:

I’m convinced many chippy cunts on this forum would happily fuck over many innocent people just to get their pound of flesh from  just one rich person. 

And if that happens, complain about it. As it is, it hasn't happened and so it might be better to focus on the victims of a rich person who isn't just a rich person but a sexual harasser and intimidating bully. 

Jimbro66

robgilmo said

Tell me this guys, because I dont really follow the news, were they just accusations or were they facts based on evidence?

I’ve not seen any mention of a police investigation yet but I do remember reading that it was a temporary injunction until such times as the alleged behaviour may result in prosecution and a criminal court case.

menamestom

Would it be a bad time to ask everybody not to worry about it and perhaps crowdfund my loft conversion?

octatonic

Super Injunction is the worst super hero name ever.

richardhomer

octatonic said:

Super Injunction is the worst super hero name ever.

I thought it was a Muse album title....

Emp_Fab

I'm very sorry for starting the original thread.  I'm trying to comfort myself with the thought that if I hadn't posted it, someone else would have - and probably with a subject line of "(Actual Name) is a groping nonce-bucket !" or somesuch.

...not that (Actual Name) is a nonce-bucket to the best of my knowledge.

Bridgehouse

Given the choice, I’d rather have soup than an injunction. 

robgilmo

Me too, so long as it isnt tomato. 

Bridgehouse

robgilmo said:

Me too, so long as it isnt tomato. 

I prefer muliga muligaw muleriga mulliger mul

beef broth.

Axe_meister

So what's new. Big fat ugly billionaire, thinks he is God's gift to women and should be entitled to do what he wants, cos he has considerably more money than you.
Reminds me of an Orangle moron living in a house painted white in Washington.

robgilmo

Bridgehouse said:

robgilmo said:

Me too, so long as it isnt tomato. 

I prefer muliga muligaw muleriga mulliger mul

beef broth.

Oh yes, 
http://promo.heart.co.uk/heinz/img/products/big_soup.jpg

With crusty bread and lashings of salty butter....

Sometimes I like to throw a chilli into the pot just to heat it all up a little , Mmmmmmm