May 25th, 2011

Schillings Backlash: Injunction Industry Under Fire
Parliament Should Define Privacy Limitations

The Schillings backlash has commenced in full, the tabloids are splashing on front page stories about Schillings’ losing clients with gusto. Schillings lost a case about Gordon Ramsey’s father-in-law yesterday to The Sun, over a case originally taken out by Schillings against Guido’s virtual mother, Popbitch, rubbing more salt into Schillings’ wounds.

The make-up of the recent Lord Neuberger Committee on super-injunctions – set up to investigate the supposed “need for a privacy law” – included lawyers involved in making their millions from the injunction industry; Rod Christie-Miller, CEO of Schillings, and Alasdair Pepper, a Carter-Ruck partner, argued their case successfully.

Privacy law is based on the European Convention on Human Rights which was formulated in the 1950s,  Article 8 enshrined an individual’s right to a private and family life at a time when totalitarianism stalked Europe. Millions were oppressed, the rights of shagging celebrities were not foremost in the drafter’s minds. It was envisaged to protect individuals from the state.

Lord Wakeham, a former chairman of the Press Complaints Commission, argues this morning that the the Human Rights Act could be amended, rather than just repealed:-

“..possibly by limiting the role of the Courts to dealing with issues that impact only on public authorities and the State (as the drafters of the Convention envisaged). That would leave the media outside the direct supervision of the Courts on privacy issues and enable the PCC – which can react much more swiftly to changes in newspaper technology than the law will ever be able to do so – to reassert its primacy in this area, as Parliament always intended.”

In Ireland the ECHR was incorporated into the constitution only in 2006, Irish judges so far have taken the Wakeham view, correctly in Guido’s opinion, that Article 8 is to protect individuals from unlawful privacy violations by the state and agencies of the state. It protects individuals only from journalists who use illegal means; hacking, stealing photos, sneaking onto private property and similar. It has not so far been used to hide the embarrassment of adulterous politicians and footballers. That is how Article 8 should be properly interpreted and parliament should make the law explicitly clear.

A few years ago an Irish High Court judge gave Carter-Ruck’s representatives short shrift and a bollocking over an application they made for a gagging-injunction against a certain charming, cheeky Irish blogger on behalf of a rich British politician and his socialite freedom of speech campaigner sister. For legal reasons Guido can’t say any more…


184 Comments

  1. 1
    King Albert of Belgium says:

    Dirty bastards !

    Like

    • 3
      Dalai Llama Ding Dong says:

      Oh dear, Billy will be in a megasulk now, LOL LOL LOL!!!!!!!

      Like

      • 15
        • 53
          Anonymous says:

          I do support the human rights act, it is there to protect people from the governments that abuse its powers. How can the same act interpreted differently in different countries?

          The problem we have is the courts in this country and the way the justice system work in this country. We have a system where judges, barristers and lawyers switch seats; due to this they seems to look after themselves rather than people. It will be better is judges are trained just to become judges.

          Like

          • The Bishop of Bath and Wells says:

            I would go further and state that there was absolutely no need to introduce ECHR into the Legal systems in the UK. Such legislation was drafted on the back of the Holocaust and all the atrocities of Nazi Germany.

            Our Law has always afforded protection from these gross abuses of Power.
            It’s not that the well meaning intentions of such legislation is wrong it’s more the inevitable interpretation or in many cases imagined interpretations leading to rulings never intended in the first instance.

            Lawyers are ruining this country out of sheer and utter greed.

            Like

          • Anonymous says:

            UK government lost a lot of cases in European Courts of Human Rights, due to abuse of power. So to protect the people we need the Human Rights Act.

            Michael Howard (Baron Howard of Lympne) QC; ex home secretary brought number of oppressive law that were reversed by the European Courts of Human Rights. Without the European Courts of Human Rights this country would have been an oppressive state.

            Like

          • Is this wrong? says:

            Jan 2010 – Upholds complaint against British anti-terror law allowing police to stop and search people without firm grounds for suspicion.

            Like

          • Anonymous says:

            This country IS an oppressive state. We have no freedom of speech. There are things you cannot do and cannot say even though they do not threaten people. In Britain you can’t burn your own book in your own back garden because some people, who weren’t even there when you burnt your book, get upset. Also, you can’t buy a poppy and burn it without getting arrested. It’s certainly pretty disgusting to burn a poppy but under no circumstances should it be a criminal offense.

            Two smokers who are the only employees of their own business can’t legally smoke in their own building, which they own, even though they both want to smoke and just wait until the global warming crowd really get going, I can’t even begin to imagine all the things they will ban.

            Like

          • Anonymous says:

            “There are things you cannot do and cannot say even though they do not threaten people.”

            That’s a stretch to suggest that going around spreading potentially false rumours about an alleged extramarital affair isn’t threatening to the parties and their families.

            Like

          • Anonymous says:

            Freedom of Speech isn’t the same as lying about people. If you tell lies about someone you will have to be prepared to live with the consequences of that. In Britain we do not have freedom of thought/speech. There are certain things that it is a criminal offense to say. I’m not talking about civil law here.

            Like

          • Mike Hunt says:

            The recent high-profile cases are not about falsehood, they are trying to protect themselves from others speaking the truth.

            Bit of a difference there I think.

            Like

          • Anonymous says:

            “The recent high-profile cases are not about falsehood”

            How do you know? Arguably, the Trafigura case was about falsehood, since they’d sued the BBC for libel. (The BBC provided a robust defence to this, which may or may not be available on Wikileaks.) In the case of some of these footballers, unless we’ve seen the evidence, we can’t know whether or not there has actually been an affair. Some of the restraining orders are justified – if someone comes out and falsely claims to have had an affair, and happens to have some convenient photos, what hope has the other person got of proving them wrong?

            Like

          • Boudicca says:

            There are perfectly good laws of libel and slander to protect against spreading lies about people. And sensitive legal cases covering such things as child abuse where the victims have to be protected, have also worked for years.
            The clamour for a privacy law is all down to greedy lawyers and those in positions of power with something to hide.

            Like

          • Anonymous says:

            So why are rich people not entitled to hide things while the rest of us are?

            Like

          • Anonymous says:

            Libel actions against the mainstream media are of limited effectiveness after the fact. If every newspaper in the country has wrongly branaded you a paedophile on the front page, and later published a tiny apology on page 94, how does a libel action get the wrongful impression out of people’s minds?

            How many people still think Michael Jackson was a kiddie fiddler, even after both civil and criminal proceedings found nothing?

            Like

    • 5
      Dalai Llama Ding Dong says:

      “The make-up of the recent Lord Neuberger Committee on super-injunctions”

      Brilliant keeper, Lord Purple Nose of United is still seething for not signing him before Bayern Munich nabbed him!

      Like

      • 184
        John Bellingham says:

        So the committee had no members who believe in honesty, truth, justice and free speech then, just lawyers and judges?

        Like

    • 7
      ampersfa says:

      They should keep it zipped in! Did you notice he has a sister? There are two of them lol.

      Like

    • 49
      Common sense voter says:

      The Irish judge that Guido knew of seems to have the right attitude. How to get that attitude enshrined in law over here ….

      Like

      • 72
        Dalai Llama Ding Dong says:

        Can’t be done, you can’t bottle innate Irish wisdom and disdain for authority.

        Like

      • 103
        Anonymous says:

        The Irish don’t have any concept of rigid law. Everything is either “that’s grand”, “ah, don’t push it” or “right, now you’re taking the piss”. Which is a pretty decent classification if you ask me.

        Like

    • 66
      David LXws says:

      If any one’s reading this who may or may not be called something like Mo Mar Gadaafa Me, I went to the LSE accomodation and shouted Islam at the top of my voice. (I’m exceedingly bright you know.) That certain someone didn’t reply.

      If you want to send it David Lxws, Way Too Liberal With Our Democracy’s Money, House of Parliament, England, it’ll get to me.

      Make it out to my associate Charlie Ash. He doesn’t like the name Charlie so use his initial.

      It’s not for me you understand, but for someone close.

      I hope you managed to crack my tough name code.

      Like

      • 174
        Boudicca says:

        Never mind cracking the name code, I couldn’t understand what the f*ck you’re going on about.

        Like

  2. 2
    Oh wait says:

    Weren’t Schillings the firm that represented Ryan Giggs? The news of Ryan’s allleged infidelity really shocked me – why only last week the Daily Mail ran an article saying that Rayn Giggs was as well know for his faithfullness as Hugh Bonneville

    Like

    • 18
      sockpuppet #4 says:

      with thanks to the daily mash:

      Don’t tell me who they are, I don’t give a shit and will have forgotten who it was in a week.

      Like

      • 107
        Hugh Bonnedildo says:

        Ryan Giggs plays for Man Utd and he had an affair with that Imogen off of Big Brother.

        Focus on that and stop looking this way (my bum’s sore)

        Like

        • 121
          sockpuppet #4 says:

          illustrates the point: I’ve already forgotten which TV show that chap was in. I would have completely forgotten it was costume drama of some sort. I know it wasn’t Candleford

          Like

        • 123
          Erica Morley says:

          You don’t know the meaning of sore. They call be cheeky in here now.

          Like

        • 134
          Anonymous says:

          He allegedly had an affair. We don’t know that it isn’t blackmail yet. I heard she’s washed up and in need of a bit of cash.

          Like

        • 181
          Robdog says:

          Oy! Any truth in the rumour that, having got Giggsy by the short and curlies, Imogen has been signed up for the film Shaving Ryan’s Privates? Make his eyes water!

          Like

    • 127
      Anonymouse says:

      In for a Shilling, in for a £.

      Like

  3. 4
    Man on the Clapham Omnibus says:

    Not that old Jemima Khan/Jeremy Clarkson thing again

    Like

    • 14
      • 36
        Dalai Llama Ding Dong says:

        Gotta be the ‘gold’ diggers…

        Like

      • 90
        Dick the Prick says:

        I kinda disagree here GF. I have significant problems with the judiciary and the politicization of it and feel that the longer this continues, the greater will be the harm to their reputation, authority and arbitrary undemocratic decisions. Lord Philips clearly isn’t up to the job, Lady Hale is inexperienced and they’re all socialists. If rich people are screwing them then why should parliament get involved any time soon? I just don’t see why MPs should give a toss.

        Like

        • 112
          Anon E Mouse says:

          Two reasons:-

          1. They’re still sore with the media (Telegraph, Guido, and other blogs) handling of the expenses saga. As they want to keep their behavioiur away from public gaze, the dwarf and and a number of MP aren’t happy with John Hemming beeing see to support freedom of the press.

          2. It’s a power struggle as to who is seen to have ‘sovereignty’ over the legal system.

          Like

          • Dick the Prick says:

            Yup, quite right. Stupidly forgot to assess the true self serving, deceitful, fuck you culture of individual MPs; mae culpa.

            Like

  4. 6
    Fa Kin Su Pah says:

    I can see how you have to
    be cautious and discreet.

    Like

  5. 8
    i rest my case says:

    Schillings need to been Carter-Fucked good and proper.

    Like

    • 137
      pissed off voter says:

      I wonder if that footballer will screw Schillings for unprofessional conduct, etc with as much gusto as when screwing the thomas woman.

      Like

  6. 9
    Gordon Brown says:

    Today, I are mostly waiting in for Obama to visit.

    Like

  7. 10

    The word shilling comes from scilling, an accounting term that dates back to Anglo-Saxon times where it was deemed to be the value of a cow in Kent or a sheep elsewhere.

    John Terry got a cow and a hen’s worth whilst Ryan Giggs bought the farm.

    Like

  8. 12

    Rod Christie-Miller, possibly the world’s most useless lawyer. Why people want to chuck money at firms like his confounds belief.

    Perhaps the rich will now take note.

    Like

  9. 13
    Steve Miliband says:

    Yesterday a journo asked a benign question about Ryan Gaggs at a press conference. Sir Lord Alex of Ferguson 10 year old Malt, gave a benign answer and then was heard on mic, to request the journo never be allowed at a Man U press conference again.
    Typical

    Like

    • 27
      Dalai Llama Ding Dong says:

      Lord Bluenose of Man Citeh quite rightly blueballed him from Friday’s debacle – how very DARE dare this utter chav ask about his Holiness of Left Foot at a soccerball press conference!

      BOOKIE! I’ll have another pony on Messi and 2-0, and a monkey on a sending off!

      Like

    • 37
      Drop a daisy cutter on the BBC says:

      If the press had any balls, the entire media would have walked out of Fergie’s press conference and refused to give ANY coverage to Man U until fat Fergie says sorry.

      The press should black out all advertising on Man U shirt or in the ground, that would piss off the sponsors.

      Like

      • 71
        The Bishop of Bath and Wells says:

        Such a banning may well be a breach of contract as Man U have a legal obligation under UEFA rules to provide access to the media. Barring a representative of a newspaper without good reason may well be a step to far for Ferguson.

        Like

        • 139
          Postlethwaite says:

          When did legal obligation ever have any sway – Bliar Bush to name but two.

          And i am surely not the only one that remembers the summing up in a court case before the beatification of furguson, that he was a narcisstic wanker. (The judge used a different word). It was around the time man utd went down to the second division.

          Like

          • Let's all make things up says:

            Postlethwaite, Man U have never been relegated under Ferguson, what Shite you talk. Is this just more evidence of your anti Scottish bigotry. You just make things up don’t you inglish redneck that you are.

            Like

          • Postlethwaite says:

            Read again – It was around the time man utd went down to the second division.

            He was fired from St Mirren cos he was a narcisstic wanker.

            I know, I know, you think he walks on water.

            Anti Scottish bigotry? er no, he was described as a narcisstic wanker – scottish or not.

            Like

          • Still making things up says:

            When in a hole stop digging man, leaving aside the clear meaning of your post which sought to link Ferguson with the relegation of united, your pathetic and desperate attempt to justify your bollox is also bollox. Man U were Relegated to the 2nd division in 1974, whereas at was 4years later before Ferguson was sacked from St Mirren.
            I hold no torch for Fergie in fact I’d love to see him fall flat on his face on Saturday but that doesn’t distract from my main point which is you talk shite and make things up where you think you can attack the Scots whether using Ferguson as an excuse or by other means.

            Like

      • 124
        Anon E Mouse says:

        As the UK media particularly are so reliant on sports coverage (aka Football) they won’t do anything to upset Fergie.

        Like

        • 142
          Wayne Rooneys Bum says:

          Mr Sir Alex of Ferguson Manchester United Gush Gush is a twat but the media luvvies love united better than their own grans and especially Sky who have them on the telly every week – we are all united now

          Like

  10. 17
    ooooh get you Ducky says:

    Like

    • 21
      Steve Miliband says:

      The state pays for his dinner!!Disgrace.

      Like

    • 23
      Selohesa says:

      Don’t think he had a ticket to the other

      Like

    • 24
      nothing more to say says:

      What a fucking creep.

      Like

    • 26
      Silly boy says:

      Was that because your brother Ed was at the state dinner?

      Snubbing the Queen and the US President ain’t big and it ain’t clever. You are the weakest link goodbye.

      Like

    • 31
      Sir William Waad says:

      David, don’t pretend that you were invited to the state dinner. We all know.

      In my case, I have to give a speech as Master of the Loamshire Saboteurhounds so I won’t be able to renew my acquaintance with Dr Michelle LaVaughn.

      Like

    • 51
      retardEd Miliband says:

      You’re jutht jealouth becauthe I thtabbed you in the back and thtole your career!

      Mwaa-haaa haaa haa! Mwaaa haaa ha HA HAAAA! Oopth. I’ve wet my pantth.

      Like

    • 55
      Rewind History please says:

      Like father like sons.

      He could have stayed in Europe and fought, no he comes here as an illegal immigrant and we get saddled with those two twerps!

      Like

    • 102
      Samuel says:

      How The Mighty Have Fallen.

      Like

  11. 20
    Embarrassingministersmoments says:

    O/T
    Does anyone have the clip from the time David Milliband, as Foreign Secretary, met Obama at, I think, the UN? It was so embarrassing to see a UK Minister of State grovelling to shake hands with his idol.
    ( Harry C, it will sit with your photo of Ed on Twitter)

    Like

    • 54
      Dalai Llama Ding Dong says:

      I prefer the Bush “Yo Bliar” and subsequent groveling moment myself.

      Like

      • 75
        Barry O'Bamas greatest speeches #45 says:

        “and finally…..can someone shut that band up I haven’t finished yet !”

        Like

  12. 22
    Ben Dover says:

    “Big Lawyer Is Injuncting You.”

    How big exactly?

    Like

  13. 25
    Spank Sinatra says:

    How I do love the tittle tattle! Excellent work!

    Like

  14. 30
    Aunt Hilda says:

    gagging orders for serious security issues ok but clearly celebrity reputation control is becoming a joke.

    In the real world sarkozy’s talking of controls of the internet are far more concerning..already accessible for governmental purposes…gchq …nsa…etc and perhaps debateably acceptable…but in general terms absolutely not a route to be anything other than resisted at all costs.

    Like

  15. 32
    Sir Everard Digby says:

    Guido,

    A little balance would be appropriate. Are the media even handed,fair and truthful in what they do? are they fuck? Does the individual does have a right to a private life.Yes they do – how do they maintain it with the media as it is? Ask them nicely to stop? Frankly who shagged who and how should be a private matter.The peeping toms in the public should have to find their tittilation elsewhere.

    Ok he/she might be due all the flak that’s going but what about other family members?. The media never deal with these issues other than as a firestorm. They don’t care about collateral damage. That’s wrong.

    Perhaps if they were a little more sensible, and did not take the lazy ‘sensationalise everything’ appraoch, we would not need all these legal measures which actually impact on everyone.

    Like

    • 80
      The Bishop of Bath and Wells says:

      Adultery is not a private matter. Marriage is a legal contract in which both participants swear oaths to each other in the presence of witnesses to remain faithful to the terms of the contract. When any one of the parties breaks the terms of the contract then there are legal consequences.
      Society has an interest in these contracts that’s why the question is asked during the ceremony if anyone knows of any impediment etc.
      I know this will come as a shock to many who have cheapened the institution of marriage but the fact is , adultery is Not a private matter.
      If you don’t agree with such a deal then don’t get fucking married in the first place you chav morons !

      Ps the courts are clearly in contempt and in ultra vires when they make rulings intended to conceal from the public that such a breach of contract has occurred.

      Like

      • 110
        Handycock, Guardian of National moral virtue says:

        I could not agree more, marriage is a sacred institution and should not be entered into lightly. The converse of this of course is that extra marital sex should be entirely private and uninvestigated by the media. Following these common sense principles would avoid all this scandal and personal embrrassment.

        Like

      • 118
        sockpuppet #4 says:

        And it gives the newspapers more excuses than they’ll ever need to print pictures of tits. Great ones in this case.

        Like

      • 119
        Anonymous says:

        It is a private matter. If marriage is a contract, like all contracts it is subject to a rule called “privity of contract”, which is a polite way of saying that if you’re not a party it’s none of your fucking business.

        Like

        • 151
          The Bishop of Bath and Wells says:

          But the point of marriage is that society IS a party to the contract. that’s why you can’t get married in private, that’s why you can’t get married at the drop of a hat and there must be a time period when the banns are made public. The public are invited to chip in if they know of any impediment to the legal arrangement going ahead.
          It is a very public issue. Do keep up

          Like

          • Anonymous says:

            Reality Check found 5 errors in your last message. Fix them? [Yes] [No]

            Society is legally incapable.
            You can get married in private. (You wouldn’t be able to simply walk in to a register office uninvited.)
            You can get married at the drop of a hat (relatively speaking, at least).
            Banns are only required for the Loony Bin, er, I mean Church.
            “Impediments” are an unresolved marriage and prohibited relations.

            Like

          • The Bishop of Bath and Wells says:

            Society is represented by the courts
            You need witnesses
            You can’t get married at the drop of a hat
            Marriage is the bedrock of society that’s why it is not a private matter
            Why are Divorces announced publicly ?

            Like

          • Anonymous says:

            “Society is represented by the courts”
            No, the law is represented by the courts.

            “You need witnesses”
            But no more. You don’t need an audience. A couple can get married with only three other people in the room if they so wish. I’d say that’s pretty private.

            “You can’t get married at the drop of a hat”
            [citation needed]

            “Marriage is the bedrock of society that’s why it is not a private matter”
            [non-sequitur]

            “Why are Divorces announced publicly ?”
            That depends on your definition of “announced publicly”.

            Like

          • The Bishop of Bath and Wells says:

            Anonymong you are clearly a supporter of the disintegration of marriage in this country, perhaps to justify something in your own closet. I disagee with your position.
            The law represents the will of parliament ie the people , collectively called society
            When one or more witnesses are required then it ain’t private.
            The law around marriage is designed to protect not just the couples concerned but Society in general.
            That’s why divorce requires legal process .
            Adultery ain’t a private matter though I can understand why some people would wish it so.

            Like

    • 141
      Just Sayin' says:

      ‘Frankly who shagged who and how should be a private matter.’

      Rubbish, people in the public eye and who present themselves as role models, lecture others about their lifestyle choices or gain financially from their position, have no right to avoid public scrutiny of their actions.
      Particularly so if they are contrary to which they preach that others should do, or as they present themselves to the public as being.
      Hypocrites and liars do not, nor should expect, a free pass because of their personal wealth or position.

      Like

  16. 33
    Tax Payer says:

    Some of this is in Private Eye this morning.

    Like

  17. 35
    As Bent As A Nine Schilling Note says:

    Good news for Rod, hiding behind a beard and a girls name!

    Like

  18. 38
    Wants to know says:

    So Neuberger invites onto his committee the very people who make millions out of the injunctions!!!!! You could not make it up, except when it comes to this country.

    Like

    • 41
      The Little Man says:

      Stinks don’t it? And who funded the committee?

      Like

    • 44
      Anonymous says:

      That’s right, this is where dreams/nightmares become a grim reality.

      Like

    • 138
      Sleezefinder General says:

      Isn’t Dave mean to flipping Neubergers in his back garden today? Gordon turned up with his dominoes trying to get a game last night. He’s been twiddling his double-6 for the past 12 months.

      Like

  19. 39
    The ref and his assistants for the Champions League Final says:

    # We’re in the money,
    We’re in the money;
    We’ve got a lot of what it takes to get along!
    We’re in the money,
    The sky is sunny;
    Old Man Recession, you are through,
    You done us wrong!

    Like

  20. 40
    Drop a daisy cutter on the BBC says:

    Why would anyone invite lawyers or judges to discuss privacy laws? Do turkeys vote for Christmas?

    I have an idea lets’ in invite kiddie fiddlers to discuss and review child protection laws, that’ll work. NOT!

    Like

    • 50
      John Lyon CB says:

      You are being quite unfair, I have to say self regulation along with investigations into my good friens and colleagues works very well for us!

      Like

    • 83
      Mr P Doe says:

      That is a disgraceful comment, how dare you compare kiddie fiddlers with Lawyers.

      Like

      • 160
        The soaking wet ghost of Osama Bin Laden says:

        Sorry, kiddie fiddlers are more honest and respectable.

        Like

  21. 42
    Mr Justice Turkeyforahat says:

    I say old chaps, I do hope our cosy mega fortune earning cartel is not in danger. Cripes this could be serious!

    Like

  22. 43
    Anonymous says:

    Yes, because allowing Parliament to come up with a blanket bright-line definition of “privacy” is a great idea. They did such a good job with “terrorism”, “hunting” and “music”, right?

    Like

    • 86
      The Bishop of Bath and Wells says:

      Their definition of a “racist” incident is any incident which someone deems to be errr racist WTF !!!! What circular reasoning is this ?
      Imagine using such tautology to define anything else.

      What utter fuckwittery !

      Like

  23. 47
    Jeremy Pantsoff says:

    I know I would.

    Like

  24. 48
    Anonymous says:

    The deal with injunctions is that Article 8 requires the state to respect private life etc. The courts are part of the state therefore they must respect private life too. Thus anyone who claims their private life is not being respected (by a newspaper or blogger) must have a remedy in the courts- as the courts will not be respecting private life if they fail to grant an injunction to protect someones private life.

    Like

    • 56
      Simple Solutions Inc. says:

      Just let everyone own a gun. That way, if anyone intrudes on your private life, you can shoot them in the face.

      Like

      • 67
        Anonymous says:

        We’re not allowed to have guns. Eggs, flour, and a knife (to slash the tyres) make a decent substitute, though.

        Like

    • 64
      Anonymous says:

      The problem here is two-fold.

      1. Some people think that the subjects and their families aren’t entitled to their private lives independent of their public faces. That’s a bit like saying that by commenting on this blog, you aren’t entitled to keep your opinions to yourself in future. It’s patently absurd.

      2. Some people seem to regard contempt of court as being a bit like speeding – it’s somehow not a real offence and serves only to criminalise ordinary people. Perhaps I should try that if I’m ever liable to go to prison – “You can’t jail me, I’m an ordinary person!” That’ll work, right?

      Like

      • 77
        jgm2 says:

        to regard contempt of court as being a bit like speeding

        From the few occasions I’ve been to court – in a purely observatory capacity you understand, I’d say that contempt of the proceedings is an entirely natural state of mind.

        Bewigged buffoons talking bollocks for several hundred quid an hour. Losing 50% of their cases and still living in a Georgian pile in Bucks or the Cotswolds.

        ‘If I may your honour…’

        Fucking ludicrous pantomime. Even more expensive than Opera and no singing either.

        Contempt? They want washing out of the building with a chain gun.

        Like

        • 84
          Anonymous says:

          “From the few occasions I’ve been to court […] ‘If I may your honour…’”

          Clearly not the courts in this country, then.

          Like

    • 88
      The Bishop of Bath and Wells says:

      I refer you to the above, legally adultery is NOT a private matter.

      Like

      • 99
        Anonymous says:

        Yes it is. You fail at privity.

        Like

        • 154
          The Bishop of Bath and Wells says:

          I refer you to my reply above, Society are party to the contract.

          Like

          • TONY BENN'S WILL says:

            if you are married and you fuck a member of the public i.e. someone who is not your wife then you have made your sex life public
            The press can’t tell the public about your affair but the public can tell your wife because she is not a member of the public…so the mistress can tell the wife

            Like

  25. 52

    So there is that much put-upon Jemima Khan, round having dinner with Jeremy and Frances, when he slipped her some meat, maybe Frances was out in the kitchen. And all the time she had an Inj*nct**n out. You never know what’s going on, do you? Wonder if Jeremy had Sage on top?

    Like

  26. 63
    A Pensioner says:

    So Jemimah Kahn has been shaggin Dominique Strauss-Kahn? I’m getting confused with all this. Where does Giggs fit in?

    Like

  27. 65
    Aunt Hilda says:

    the issues of privacy are a complex troublesome area in a supposed free society…obviously we are all against terrorists using the internet to perpetuate their propoganda or indeed use it to assist their terrible actions but how they can be stopped without infringing everyone else’s right to use the internet unhindered is very difficult indeed.

    Unfortunately the gradual erosion of civil liberties and the right to privacy are areas of legislation profoundly complicated by the modern technologies we all have access to.

    The reality, were it possible, to internationally censor one’s ability to use the internet is just not acceptable.

    Some years ago when money laundering became the thin end of the wedge to open up people’s affairs to scrutiny there was an outcry but it became the norm…then terrorism became the second wedge.

    If ‘We don’t like what you’re saying’ is allowed to become the third wedge it is curtains for every single element of civilised rights and freedoms supposed ‘free’ nations like us and others are fighting to promulgate worldwide.

    Like

    • 73
      Anonymous says:

      What about “We don’t like what you’re saying, and by saying it you are seriously prejudicing our ability to correct the misinformation within it”? After all, nobody’s asking the real question here – did Guido rape and murder a girl in 1991? Just askin’, is all.

      Like

      • 81
        Aunt Hilda says:

        Agree Anon this is the nub of the question we’re dealing with…in the case of terrorists governments have pretty much free reign to investigate, disrupt and intervene to suit their purposes but how far down the pecking order of seriousness do we draw the line. Given we do allow intervention …how should that be enacted in the real world of you and I and our families. Clearly resorting to law is not financially realistic for the vast majority.

        Like

        • 150
          Anonymous says:

          “Clearly resorting to law is not financially realistic for the vast majority.
          Reply”

          I take it you were sleeping when the no-win-no-fee solicitors turned up?

          Like

    • 87
      AC1 says:

      >obviously we are all against terrorists using the internet to perpetuate their propoganda

      Speak for yourself. I think it’s great they leave such an obvious trail for our security services to “clear” them up.

      Like

      • 145
        Aunt Hilda says:

        …in no sense did I condone what terrorists do and it is good if they are tracked by their use of the internet. What ‘speak for yourself’ is supposed to imply eludes me.

        Like

  28. 74
    The Right Honourable Gordon Brown MP says:

    Filth always finds it way to the gutter

    Like

  29. 76
    Arriet Arman says:

    Is PMT’s on today wot wiv Obama n’all? I fink we kneed to no.

    Like

  30. 79
    Penfold says:

    Clearly the Irish attitude is correct, and we should ensure that the UK attitude matches.

    As for having lawyers in the decision making loop, that’s absurd. Clearly the scumbags at Schillings and Cart-the-Fuck-Up, would look to their own position and earnings rather than any pure legal interpretation.

    Neuberger and his useless committee deserve and seriously merit a huge size 20 boot in the goolies. Time for DC to sack a serious number of bods in the legal prof and taking the public coin. They have demonstrated time after time that they are not worthy of their roles and are unable to function effectively without ensuring that their co-mafia confreres are looked after.

    Like

    • 92
      The Bishop of Bath and Wells says:

      I sincerely hope you are not part of the legal profession as speaking out in such a fashion is a clear breach of OMERTA

      Like

  31. 96
    Johnny says says:

    “The make-up of the recent Lord Neuberger Committee on super-injunctions – set up to investigate the supposed “need for a privacy law” – included lawyers involved in making their millions from the injunction industry; Rod Christie-Miller, CEO of Schillings, and Alasdair Pepper, a Carter-Ruck partner, argued their case successfully.”

    There is no need for new law. The European Convention on Human Rights is being abused and judges are failing to balance Article 8 (privacy) with Article 10 (freedom of expression). I would suggest the people seeking super injunctions and the judges imposing them are breaching Article 6 (right to a fair trial (which includes it being done impartially and in a reasonable time frame)) and Article 17 (abuse of one right to deny another right).

    Like

    • 159
      Anonymous says:

      Absolutely right. We should punish people for abusing their Article 10 rights to deny others their Article 8 rights.

      Like

  32. 98
    Billy Bowden is the greatest umpire ever ! says:

    Are those C-unts on holiday again?

    Like

    • 105
      Shock,Awe and Total indifference says:

      They’re all on their best behaviour for when Obama addresses a joint assembly of both houses of Parliament this lunch time and strings us the line that he actually cares about the “Special Essential Relationship” …mm now what was that about BRITISH Petrolem ??……although no doubt he’s pleased as he’s getting some good pictures for his election campaign which I suspect is really why he’s come here in the first place……………….

      Like

  33. 106
    Ed Miliband says:

    Langar Hall
    Langar
    Nottinghamshire

    Friday 27 May

    All welcome. (Except David)

    Don’t forget to bring a present.

    Like

  34. 117
    Chris Huhne,Barack Obama's chauffeur says:

    Barack rather liked this gag

    A drunk Irishman steps out of a pub. The first person he sees is a nun. He runs up to the nun & starts punching, kicking, and biting her. The nun begins to scream, but the Irishman knocks her to the ground. The nun tries to get up, but she keeps getting pummeled by the Irishman. He starts cursing, yelling, & screaming threats at her. Finally, the nun is able to get away from the Irishman. As she’s taking flight down the street, she hears the Irishman yell, “Not so tough, now, are ya, Batman?!?”

    Like

  35. 122
    The Labour Party says:

    Directive 594 from Labour HQ for immediate attention of all party members:

    Members, this Directive is a Category A Directive, failure to obey is punishable with maximum force. You are all ordered to hold street parties on Friday to mark the wedding of our leader. If you cannot afford to throw a party, you are required to take out a loan. No excuse will be accepted.

    Failure to comply will result in dire consequences for you and your family. Your continuing loyalty and service to Labour is of vital importance as we seek to regain power.

    Herr Campbell

    Like

  36. 128
    Hugh Bonneville says:

    Yo yo yo! Where my whores at? I need a dildo up my ass! I gots to get some action!

    Like

  37. 132
    Sir William Waad says:

    To paraphrase an old Birmingham song:

    “If you go down Summer Row
    The girls are always willing.
    If you want to go with them
    You have to pay a Schilling….”

    (It goes on:

    “Soldiers half-a-crown
    Sailors half a guinea
    Big fat men two pounds ten
    Little kids a penny”)

    Like

  38. 135
    gildedtumbril says:

    Guido, you must tell us who this ‘charming Irish blogger’ is. We are all dying to know. Might he, perchance, be an ex bull runner?

    Like

  39. 135
    Gordon Brown says:

    I can announce today that I’ve been named the new head of the EMF.

    Like

  40. 146
    Billy Bowden is the greatest umpire ever ! says:

    Besides parliament cant do fuck all because the EU will have the final say and you can see what the EU think of democrcy.

    Like

  41. 168
    RBS we shag anything says:

    A solicitor making money of the back of a working girl hes one the same level as a pimp

    Like

  42. 178
    Kered Ybretsae says:

    My learned friends and their lovely little earners ‘Gigging Orders’.

    Like

  43. 182
    Anonymous says:

    There is nothing ‘private’ about visiting prostitutes behind your spouses back.

    Like


Seen Elsewhere

Mirror’s ‘UKIP Goggles’ App Backfires | Press Gazette
Woolas Agent Standing for UKIP | MEN
Compassionate Left in Action | Mark Wallace
Sainsbury’s Distance Themselves From Sick Cam Tweeter | Speccie
Elites Pay Price for Killing Grammar Schools | Jago Pearson
Thornberry Makes Burnham Leadership Favourite | Matthew Norman
Guido’s Column | Sun
BBC Still Ignoring Savile Evidence | Telegraph
Politicians Brought Down by Twitter | CityAm
Ed the Biggest Loser in Rochester | Trevor Kavanagh
A Just Way to Manage Migration | Mats Persson


Find out more about PLMR AD-MS


Boris on his fellow Islingtonista Emily Thornberry:

“It was an entirely run-of-the-mill English townscape, with some straightforward words to go with it. There was no obvious insult, no abuse, no overt sneering. She might have got away with it entirely, had some alert blogger not spotted it. He instantly detected the coded message that Emily Thornberry was sending to all her right-on, bien-pensant, Labour-luvvie friends in Islington, or wherever else it is that they follow her on Twitter.”



Left on Left says:

The lefties are attacking because the panellist is a millionaire and lives in a London home worth upwards of two million. Someone had best tell them he’s called Ed Miliband.


Tip off Guido
Web Guido's Archives

Subscribe me to:






RSS




AddThis Feed Button
Archive


Labels
Guido Reads
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,604 other followers