#superinjunctions

[themancorialist]

Wilbraham Road, Manchester.

[alarrytale]

Only two super injunctions have been granted since 2010 and I really don't think Harry & Louis is one of them. All the others are in relation to legal disputes.

Link to info about super injunctions. Only two granted since 2010.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-injunctions_in_English_law

How do super injunctions work? Couldn't a fan theoretically sneak a picture, and Harry and Louis would have no way of knowing, before the fan posts it online immediately? That doesn't seem difficult at all. Forgive me if I sound ignorant lol I just don't understand it.

Hi, anons!

I've talked about super-injunctions before. Check out my tag. I don't think it's true that there's only two since 2010. The record seems to stop in 2014. But it's not many. It seems like people are favouring privacy injunctions over super-injunctions nowadays, since super-injunctions don't work in the age of social media. There are plenty of privacy injunctions, and they work much in the same way. They might have one, or they might not have one. They might have other means of dealing with privacy and the press. I know very little of UK law.

A fan could take a picture of them, but the fan would recieve some sort of take down notice and given an NDA most likely. The UK media wouldn't have been allowed to report on it if they have an injunction. The damage would be done either way, so it's about minimising the consequences. Since the tools are limited, that's probably why they're only together in places they know they'll be left alone and in private settings where everyone has signed NDAs. It isn't fool proof, and that's why we have so many stories about them being together here or there over the years, and stories from people who've broken their NDAs.

We do know that Harry has a court order about paps around his place of residence. He and Louis probably have one around their house too.

[persimmonlions]

Regarding the superinjunction thing, is it possible there was one before? But no longer? Because we always discussed how come NO incriminating pics of HL exist from a pap? Like maybe them walking together? Does 1DHQ just snap the pics up and edit them?

If there had been a superinjunction that lifted, you can bet that every respectable newspaper would have jumped to report on it. They really, really hate them.

In the words of Simon Cowell's former and now disgraced publicist Max Clifford, just buy tabloids out with better stories. (See: weed video.)

[persimmonlions]

hobnailedboots replied to your post “Since the superinjunction theory is going around again and I’m...”

yeah we would definitely have seen more of things like the broadsheets were doing, winkingly going "allegedly one of the superinjunctions concerns an actor's infidelity. Oh by the way, Hugh Bonneville's new fillm is out on such and such a date"

The way they were insinuating around those superinjunctions was hilarious. They were blind items that respectable, stuffy people could get into.

[persimmonlions]

Since the superinjunction theory is going around again and I’m attached to part of that post, I want to discuss the possibility there isn't a superinjunction.

After the superinjunctions controversies in 2011, discussion of superinjunctions by media outlets made it clear there were still outstanding superinjunctions but also that the journalism establishment held them in contempt.

If there was a superinjunction out, Jenn Selby would have reacted much differently on Twitter than she did. She wouldn't have tweeted "I'm sorry you found our article in anyway insulting". Yahoo Celebrity UK would not have risked publishing any mention of Larry Stylinson, even those obviously marked as speculation, as they would not risk the possible legal repercussions. Meanwhile, Private Eye would have already cheerfully insinuated its existence, legal action be damned.

[sweetthingshavesharpteeth]

A side to the super-injunction debate not typically heard.

[penllawen]

Marina Hyde: "The Ryan Giggs story was not run with any noble intentions"

Marina Hyde writes about [Ryan Giggs, affairs, and superinjunctions](http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2011/may/26/ryan-giggs-affair-big-brother) for the Guardian: > Enron, WorldCom, Madoff Securities, Lehman Brothers, Ryan Giggs PLC. And so it is that another name is added to the fraudsters' roll of shame, the list of glorified thieves who ... I'm sorry. Which of us has the strength? Of all the nauseating aspects of L'Affaire Giggsy – and they're legion – perhaps the most emetic is the manner in which it has been dressed up in pseudo-financial language, the solemn tones of the whistleblower, as though those who wished to publish details of his sex life were exposing massive corporate fraud, as opposed to indulging in a bit of sharp business practice themselves. > And never forget it is the intimate details they wish to publish, as opposed to the mere allegations of infidelity. Everybody with a timeshare on half a brain cell knows that the Sun wanted to run its original Giggs story because it would have titillated some of the public. Yet you cannot move for disingenuous cobblers about how Giggs had "traded" on a reputation which now "lies in tatters". "The Giggs brand," runs some typically woolly posturing in the Daily Mail, "was underpinned by his 'clean cut, family man' image." Doubtless the Trade Descriptions Act will have been adduced by Friday. Nailed it.

[rmitchem-blog]

In my last post, I asked how long super injunctions could last. The answer is, not very long as the footballer at the centre of the allegations, Ryan Giggs, was unmasked this week in Parliament.