What is ransomware and how do I protect my PC from WannaCry?
A super injunction has been lifted after his name was revealed under parliamentary privilege.
Regardless of your personal feelings about Sir Fred, or about super injunctions, should parliamentary privilege be used, or abused, in order to deliberately break the law?
Once politicians see themselves as above the law we are on a very slippery slope.
Not silly at all.
Superinjunctions are being abused by rich people to try and bring in a privacy law by the back door.
This particular injunction has been partially lifted, naming Sir Fred as one of the parties, but not the other party, a senior bank executive.
What is important in this case, is the possibility that Sir Fred's philandering with another bank exec may have led to him taking his eye off the ball and let his bank collapse around his ears.
Surely, some politicians have already seen themselves above the law?.
What I find concerning about the above linked article " Instead, ministers will consider producing more detailed guidance for judges, on how to interpret the Human Rights Act, which guarantees a right to privacy".
Wasn't there talk about doing away with the Human Rights Act, here in the UK. And a 'guarantee' of privacy, is nothing more than a myth for most people?.
Super injunctions seem to be the privilege of the rich, in view of the high cost of obtaining one.
In my view, if you choose to be in public life you should be prepared to be in the spotlight.
Yes, I agree with parliamentary privilege; where else can our representatives speak out without fear, against what some may consider bad law and/or injustice.
If Goodwin was having an affair whilst the bank was in trouble, it is likely he was distracted and not applying himself to the job he should have been doing. As a result the situation may well have got worse.
Any injunction to hide such behaviour from the public, who are directly involved, in such a situation is unacceptable. Especially as if publicised it is likely it would have affected his 'retirement' payout. Basically, if guilty of neglect of his duty as a result of his other actions, he should be penalised.
There are three questions that I would like to see answered.
Was the Senior Executive mentioned, with the Same Bank as him or another?
Was that Senior Executive, the same sex as him or another?
Does that Senior Executive also suffer from Pre-Senile Dementia, or have they recovered.
I think all your questions have a familiar tone, but is it not the answer that "things will be learned" for future events?.
As to Parliamentary Privilege ~ It is essential.
In this case it is essential, anything bad that happens to this unprincipled cretin is good news. Hopefully his wife will now divorce him and take everything he's got.
You say 'stop being so silly' to another forum member, but surely he was only pointing out the error in your previous comment?
You said: "..should parliamentary privilege be used, or abused, in order to deliberately break the law?"
What was being pointed out to you is that nobody deliberately broke the law. What happened was that a parliamentarian judged that the revelation was in the public interest, so he used parliamentary privilege to make the disclosure. He was entitled to do so, even though a judge had previously thought otherwise when granting the injunction.
It isn't a question of a politician seeing himself as being above the law at all, it was done in what the person concerned believed was the public interest. It's precisely what parliamentary privilege was designed for.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.