[alex_front2]

http://www.theguardian.com/books/201...abuse-book-son

(Super) injunctions, good or bad?

[Raph]

Imogen Thomas teas

[Raph]

Also in general i'm super against them just because it's just a way to give people with money more power, and is usually just an unfair part of the legal system

[Livia]

Bad. No one is above the law. By the same token... reporting of a crime should be in the public interest and not just for salacious gossip.

[Z]

I think super injunctions to protect the rich and famous are a bit unfair; everybody should be afforded that courtesy until the case is closed and if the verdict is guilty or otherwise negates the need for an injunction, the identities should be revealed. I think it's ridiculous how many lives have been ruined by the media declaring people guilty before the courts do.

[JoshBB]

Same as the above three replies tbh

[Z]

"The details of the case are shrouded in such extensive secrecy that the artist can be identified only as MLA, his exact form of performance cannot be described and his publishers can be named only as STL. His son, whose age cannot be published – other than to say that he is “approaching his teenage years” – can be named only as OPO. The boy’s mother can be identified only as BHM.

She moved away from the UK after the couple’s divorce in 2009, and is living in a country that the court described in a judgment handed down on Thursday as “Ruritania”, in order to conceal details of her identity. The boy was described in the judgment as having “dual British and Ruritanian nationality”."

See now this is just stupid, it's encouraging people to try and suss out who this is. That's not protecting privacy at all.