RE: ...4 Oct 2024 09:57
in theory, the journalists who shared the information to make all of this possible would be subject to sanction – perhaps even prison – by the courts. but since thousands of journalists knew about the superinjunctions, this has in practice not been enforced.
thus, injunctions and superinjunctions of the sort that exist in the popular imagination basically don’t exist any more – they were a bad legal tactic that doesn’t work in the internet era. reporting restrictions on criminal trials still exist, and there are other cases (like zxc v bloomberg) where uk courts value privacy far beyond the standard that other countries’ courts do, but the general rule is this: at least 99 times out of 100 you hear the word “injunction”, you can stop listening to the rest of what the person is saying.
the keir starmer injunction story is even stupider because politicians struggled to get injunctions even back in the era where they were popular: because politicians seek election, and are subject to lots of rules governing their conduct, much more of what they do qualify as being in the public interest.
why, then, are whispers of the starmer superinjunction so prevalent? there are a few reasons.
one is that the newish owner of the social media network formerly known as twitter actively rewards grifters who pose as journalists with blue ticks and social media monetisation. you are much likelier to go viral with a made-up bull**** claim from “sources” than news which has to stay grounded in mundane reality. because the new twitter leans right, made-up **** that makes right-wing idiots feel knowledgeable is guaranteed to go viral.
reason two is that westminster is not so detached from this social media ecosystem as it would like to pretend to be. the grifter-to-mainstream journalist pipeline is real: if you can get clicks and get attention, while staying just on the right side of defamation law, you have a bright career ahead of you. hint at restrictions and you can make it big.
the third reason relates to the first two, but is broader: it’s just old-school ****phobia. lord alli is ***, and has funded tens of thousands of pounds worth of clothes for the prime minister (and his wife, and other mps, which is left out of this narrative because it doesn’t fit).
at this point, people pushing bull**** ask a question with mock incredulity: “well what kind of man lets another man buy his clothes?”, as if the situation of a political leader isn’t quite different from ‘normal’ life. “queer starmer” trended on twitter for most of the weekend as a result of this nonsense – turning a legitimate story about ill-advised freebies into seedy bull****, given just enough spice to catch on further by the idea it was a secret story only insiders knew, because “the msm” were banned from telling it.
Sign In
Follow the stocks
