In the news

too much detail

word

So today's vote in Barnet seems to have gone to pot...

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/05/voters-turned-away-from-polling-stations-in-barnet

Lots of people on twitter citing Barnet's high Jewish population as proof that this is part of Labour election fraud.

right. nothing to do with an incompetent, almost entirely privatised, tory run council.

Close but technically I think the allegations are that the Labour did this because the Jews would rather vote for a dodgy Christian than a slightly less dodgy Muslim.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/mediamonkeyblog/2016/may/05/the-sun-hugh-bonneville-downton-abbey-ibsen

This only makes sense if you have heard about the latest celebrity super-injunction.

The Sun review is an absolutely amazing piece of writing. Perfect.

So Hugh Bonneville has done something that's nobody's business and grown adults at the Sun are being trolling cunts, and grown adults at the Graun are giving it the 'nudge nudge, wink wink' treatment? This country...

what did he do?

I think it's more what he did about it that The Sun are trolling him about.

I'm not sure about the current status of the super injunction which we've probably already broken simply by talking about super injunctions in the same page as the inscrutible and wholesome Mr B. However, discussions of this nature often put me in mind of the Profumo affair. A politician was involved in a spy scandal and also making use of the services of an escort on public expenses. Efforts were made to try and quell the tabloid press from reporting on this in order to save embaressment. Irony would have been duly noted if John Profumo had subsequently taken up a stage career and performed in the part of a doctor based at a lido.

I did like:

Meanwhile, the Daily Telegraph also opts to push the drama to the fore, printing a picture of a finger-wagging actor under the headline “Bonneville, champion of free speech”.

I have a feeling that this is an injunction of the ordinary, rather than super type.

The difference, as I understand it, is that a super injunction stops you talking about the injunction itself, as well as what it contains, whereas you can discuss the existence of an ordinary injunction, but not what it contains.

But then again, IANAL.

we've probably already broken

Unless you want to argue that discussing on a web forum counts as publication (which is probably doesn't, thanks to various rulings by David Eady),then we're probably safe.

An injunction could, of course, forbid discussion on an open forum, but that would need to be more explicitly stated, afaik.

Googling superinjection and the actors surname will give you the answers quite quickly.

£195. Blimey.

You can't put a price on a good pegging.

^ tone suitably lowered.

Roll on Friday.

OK, but just to bear in mind that this forum has been raked over the legal coals before because of forumengers rather liberal views on freedom of speech. Lay legal musings didn't protect our glorious leader from having to respond to some rather worrying letters and generally promise not to do it again. Even though he hadn't done it in the first place.

Yes you can, look, it's right there.

oh...wait

Very very good.... for example:

... Bonneville produces a table-thumping, microphone-grabbing tour de force and what is revealed is a man not afraid to rub people up the wrong way in his impetuous, self-righteous, tunnel vision of what is right.

WAC

1 Attachment

Daily Mail about Bonneville "But then Hugh’s devotion to wife Lulu is so strong it is understood he is known to fellow thespians as the Ryan Giggs of the showbusiness world, after the famously family-orientated footballer."

These fires in Canadia are a bit of a worry, VT of traffic calmly rolling past a raging inferno at the side of the road is a bit mental...

It's a bit like Through the Keyhole: 'Remember, the clues are there...'