COVID-19 Super-injunction?

All info related to the new biggest hoax of our time.
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 4132
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1500 times
Been thanked: 1802 times

COVID-19 Super-injunction?

Unread post by rachel »

I think it is worth looking at this topic, because I am of the opinion their might be an ongoing super-injunction of the media with regards to the harms of the COVID vaccines. And to get a feel if this could be the case, what would it entail, and could it be extended beyond national boarders?

The most famous one I know of, and I think it's the one they give you for free, is Rayon Giggs.

2011 British privacy injunctions controversy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Brit ... ontroversy
The British privacy injunctions controversy began in early 2011, when London-based tabloid newspapers published stories about anonymous celebrities that were intended to flout what are commonly (but not formally) known in English law as super-injunctions, where the claimant could not be named, and carefully omitting details that could not legally be published. In April and May 2011, users of non-UK hosted websites, including the social media website Twitter, began posting material connecting various British celebrities with injunctions relating to a variety of potentially scandalous activities. Details of the alleged activities by those who had taken out the gagging orders were also published in the foreign press, as well as in Scotland, where the injunctions had no legal force.

In England and Wales, as in many other places, an injunction can be used as a gag order, in which certain details of a legal case, including identities or actions, may not be published. These were originally created to protect people whose lives might be at risk if their details were made public, such as child offenders. However, with the passing of the Human Rights Act 1998, which wrote the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law, judges began to use a passage of the Act to extend the powers of these legal rights to cover the right to privacy. An injunction whose existence and details may not be published, in addition to the facts or allegations injuncted, became informally known as a "super-injunction".

The controversy has led to a number of wider issues being publicly examined including freedom of the press, freedom of speech, online censorship, the effect of European treaties on the UK legal systems and fundamental constitutional issues regarding parliamentary privilege and the relation between the judiciary and parliament.

The Guardian and Trafigura super-injunction
The first major publicised event involving the use of injunctions to prevent reporting in the UK was in October 2009, when The Guardian newspaper reported that it had been prevented by a legal injunction applied for by London libel lawyers Carter Ruck from covering remarks made in Parliament. Other sources, including The Spectator and the blogger Guido Fawkes, then speculated that it related to previous reports The Guardian had printed regarding the oil company Trafigura and their alleged waste dumping in the Ivory Coast.

The Guardian confirmed that Trafigura was the source of the gagging order, after the order was lifted the next day. The question that they were unable to report was from Labour MP Paul Farrelly:
  • To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of legislation to protect (a) whistleblowers and (b) press freedom following the injunctions obtained in the High Court by (i) Barclays and Freshfields solicitors on 19 March 2009 on the publication of internal Barclays reports documenting alleged tax avoidance schemes and (ii) Trafigura and Carter-Ruck solicitors on 11 September 2009 on the publication of the Minton report on the alleged dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast, commissioned by Trafigura.
The case did a great deal to arouse public suspicion of these types of injunction, eventually leading to a debate in the House of Commons, where Bridget Prentice, the Justice Minister, said that the government was concerned about the over-use of super-injunctions. She would consider whether further guidelines needed to be issued to the judiciary, and she stressed that the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840, which allowed the proceedings of Parliament to be reported without interference, was still in force.

It goes on to talk about celebrities, but that's not the point of interest, and I think they are used as a stalking horse anyway. Celebrities are game players and I think auto-hoaxing them is the best bet. There is no evidence that any celebrity has integrity, so I think we can assume they are game players and they just do what they are told to do, exactly when they are told to do it. Continuing, definitely sounds like gearing up for something.
Report of judicial committee on super-injunctions
A report by a judicial committee led by Master of the Rolls Lord Neuberger reported on 19 May 2011 with a number of recommendations and observations:
  • That the media be given advanced notice of any super-injunction to be passed (but not that the media should inform those to whom the allegations refer)
  • That the judiciary had not created laws independent of parliament (a "privacy law") but that super-injunctions were being used too frequently and should be more time-limited.
  • That reporting of statements made in the Commons or Lords, or in parliamentary committee, may not be covered by parliamentary privilege unless it can be proved they were published "in good faith and without malice". The report gave no judicial ruling or criteria as to statements which may or may not meet this criterion.
The report made no mention of the Internet or new media and how the courts would propose to enforce injunctions against non-UK publishers and non-UK hosted websites. However, commenting on the committee report, the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, stated that he believed ways would be found "similar to those used against child pornography" to prevent the "misuse of modern technology". Lord Judge has also commented on related technological challenges to the legal system such as use of Twitter in court and use of search engines by juries.

Lord Judge also commented on the wisdom of MPs and Lords using parliamentary privilege to subvert super-injunctions, asking "whether it's a very good idea for our lawmakers to be in effect flouting a court order because they disagree with the order or, for that matter, because they disagree with the law of privacy which parliament has created". In response, John Hemming MP accused the judiciary of attempting to gag parliament.

Might be useful to look at the phone hacking scam, that introduce Piers Morgan as a household name, and starts the process of "journalists" as a protected class that only include MSM paid names.
YouCanCallMeAl
Posts: 336
Joined: Sun May 29, 2022 7:36 am
Has thanked: 308 times
Been thanked: 305 times

Re: COVID-19 Super-injunction?

Unread post by YouCanCallMeAl »

I think it more likely to be a DSMA notice, or what I knew as a D notice, rather than a super injunction:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSMA-Notice

I would think a super injunction would be for private individuals or companies rather than the government. Same effect in the end though.

I looked into d notices briefly with the grenfell tower fire. What prompted me was that the number of dead seemed to rise (to something like 83?) then stop. That number then never changed for months, and I think is now 72 in the wiki record.

If they don't want to report that there is a d notice, I don't think there's a way to know that it's in place. For us, the public, that means we cannot know what we don't know.

But, all of this is moot if none of what we are presented as important is real, as I think. Science, history, politics is all so much nonsense. I tend to think d notices themselves are a prop for a special 'govt suspicion' effect.
Post Reply