Â鶹Éç

Please, It is the people who reap fortunes from 'bubbles' - so they create them - that should pay for the burst themselves - not the ordinary tax payer and worker! The Greek demonstrators are right. Nothing will change? It would if only you guys (paid for by the listeners) would report it in its simplicity. Why do you think these people speak in gibberish. They are terrified that ordinary folk will find out their simple thieving tricks. You should not allow them to get away with it.

We need a discussion challenging the notion that privacy is necessarily a good thing. It is a relatively recent phenomenon - linked I guess to urbanisation resulting from the industrial revolution. Prior to that, most people in the West lived in villages and there was precious little privacy. Indeed, until recently, most people on the planet still lived in villages. There were some distinct advantages. It 'took a village' to raise a child and social pressures ensured compliance to norms. In short when everyone knows what you are up to, you are more likely to be honest. We now live in a global village. Privacy is on its way out. When there are cameras in every care-home, school and street, abuses will rapidly diminish. Is a lack of privacy such a bad thing? Discuss!

The idea that Twitter and Facebook are protecting the ordinary folk from being gagged is obviously untrue. Those who are gagged, have their privacy protected from the press and from authority.
How many M.Ps have been aproached by voters unable to describe the help they most need to protect their human rights in this country?
We do not know who is protecting what...... their practice, their sexual relations, their pension, their offshore tax affairs, their regular family, irregular family, their bank balance?
How many gagging orders are taken out by women?

Perhaps this MP should distinguish between statute legislation which derives from the elected chamber,aided by the lords and signed by the Soveriegn and the Common Law which is binding on all courts of same level and all inferior courts .
We pay our members of the bar to argue that a case differs from all previous decisions and that the judge in the particular court is not bound by a previous decision. Case Law begins with the first case brought after the passing of a new statute.
The legal professions will grow even richer with a new privacy law.
Will the police be in charge of facebook and twitter?
Will a new privacy law forbid the judges to issue gagging orders?
How many of those outraged by the standard of enquiry of the police into hacking will live to regret a thorough enquiry?
Will we be even more unhappy with "thought" police!

I have waited several days to read John Mullin and Andy Trotters transcripts but cannot comment on those pages.
I have swiped,ineptly,the script............Have you actually have a chance to read those parts of the judgements or those parts of the judgements that you're entitled to red

I have read a couple of them, but only in passing not in a, not in necessarily in trying to draw a deep conclusion from them ................

Did it occur to the questioner to ask Helen Woods (who may have been in receipt of two injunctions) if she had any oportunity to red or indeed read or have any in depth explanation however biased (or in braille) of the legal documents involved.
I assume a court order is served summarily on behalf of the party who is praying to the judge to obtain it and is usually massively represented. The system does not require the recipient to understand anything except the consequencies of breaking it.
Not only the fear of imprisonment prevents the breaking of gagging injunctions but the desire to avoid adding to the legal coffers for so called advise.