On 1 July 2010 12:22, Timothy Green <[email protected]> wrote: > In that case, I suspect the question was asking if there were sources > outside the jurisdiction of the court -- though I suppose since no party can > report the injunction, the information can't leak out anyway. > > -t
At a basic level, if you can't know about it nor find out about it - how on earth can you possibly stop yourself from being prosecuted by it? How can you know, what you are not suppose to know, unless somebody tells you? Or am I getting the wrong end of the stick? Cheers, Dan > > On 01/07/10 12:07, Adam McGreggor wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 11:35:16AM +0100, Daniel Hilton wrote: >> >>> >>> Has anyone seen or no of anywhere on the internet that details any >>> super-injunctions that are in place at any one time? >>> >> >> AIUI (and they're not something I've particularly had any time to do >> any proper reading on), the whole point of these "super-injunctions" >> is that it would be a Contempt of Court to report on the matter; q.v., >> how very careful the Guardian were with Trafigura. >> >> Ghastly things. >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list [email protected] > Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: > https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public > -- Dan Hilton ============================ www.twitter.com/danhilton www.DanHilton.co.uk ============================ _______________________________________________ Mailing list [email protected] Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
