Scrutable

Not wishing to pass judgement yet on whether the above conversation about Corbyn will stay here, no more on Corbyn in this thread please.

We are going to have six months of Daily Mail front pages complaining about this

https://twitter.com/paulbranditv/status ... kGE9Z1_d5g

Starmer and Rayner get away it!!!!!!!

Why couldn’t it have been a pie? Then it would be Pie Crimes And Misdemeanours.

Life moves pretty fast

Stranger Mouse wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 12:05 pm Life moves pretty fast

F69FF4F4-A958-4146-A7E5-02277E21DBF9.jpeg

969C21BC-46D8-468C-A97B-43D1B42125E4.jpeg

lol. lmfao.

But... but... I saw lots of anonymous twitter accounts claiming that they "had heard" that Starmer had taken out a superinjunction to hide the fact he'd been issued with a FPN.

Surely that wasn't fake?

----
Edit
Managed to read up and see where it came from

ROFL

jimbob wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 12:12 pm But... but... I saw lots of anonymous twitter accounts claiming that they "had heard" that Starmer had taken out a superinjunction to hide the fact he'd been issued with a FPN.

Surely that wasn't fake?

----
Edit
Managed to read up and see where it came from

ROFL

Modern mentions of "superinjunctions" being taken out are usually rubbish, as they are more or less unavailable any more.

IvanV wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 1:36 pm

jimbob wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 12:12 pm But... but... I saw lots of anonymous twitter accounts claiming that they "had heard" that Starmer had taken out a superinjunction to hide the fact he'd been issued with a FPN.

Surely that wasn't fake?

----
Edit
Managed to read up and see where it came from

ROFL

Modern mentions of "superinjunctions" being taken out are usually rubbish, as they are more or less unavailable any more.

So the Boris-hairdresser story is b.llsh.t, or the injunction he is alleged to have taken out is not technically a superinjunction.

IvanV wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 1:36 pm

jimbob wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 12:12 pm But... but... I saw lots of anonymous twitter accounts claiming that they "had heard" that Starmer had taken out a superinjunction to hide the fact he'd been issued with a FPN.

Surely that wasn't fake?

----
Edit
Managed to read up and see where it came from

ROFL

Modern mentions of "superinjunctions" being taken out are usually rubbish, as they are more or less unavailable any more.

I assume unless it's a credible source, that an extraordinary claim presented without evidence is just that.

WFJ wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 1:46 pm So the Boris-hairdresser story is b.llsh.t, or the injunction he is alleged to have taken out is not technically a superinjunction.

What I had in mind is DAG's recent comment in this post this post that "‘Super-injunctions’ are also now almost impossible to obtain." And as a prominent media lawyer, he ought to know. And if you look at lists of (properly described) super-injunction cases, they dry up about 10 years ago.

There is a modern tendency for people to refer to injunctions as super-injunctions, when they do not amount to what is commonly understood as a super-injunction. What makes something a super-injunction, as commonly understood, is an injunction that prevents people even mentioning the existence of the injunction. So if you legally know there is an injunction, it's a not a super-injunction. It's only super-injunctions that are kept legally secret, and they are now almost impossible to obtain.

So it is very unlikely that we are being prevented from knowing something about a Canadian hairdresser due to an injunction whose existence is legally undisclosable.

WFJ wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 1:46 pm

IvanV wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 1:36 pm

jimbob wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 12:12 pm But... but... I saw lots of anonymous twitter accounts claiming that they "had heard" that Starmer had taken out a superinjunction to hide the fact he'd been issued with a FPN.

Surely that wasn't fake?

----
Edit
Managed to read up and see where it came from

ROFL

Modern mentions of "superinjunctions" being taken out are usually rubbish, as they are more or less unavailable any more.

So the Boris-hairdresser story is b.llsh.t, or the injunction he is alleged to have taken out is not technically a superinjunction.

I've not managed to find a decent source for this story, and have largely missed it. What's the goss?

IvanV wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 2:16 pm And if you look at lists of (properly described) super-injunction cases, they dry up about 10 years ago.

It's only super-injunctions that are kept legally secret, and they are now almost impossible to obtain.

Although ... how would we know?

Bird on a Fire wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 2:24 pm
I've not managed to find a decent source for this story, and have largely missed it. What's the goss?

Supposedly a pregnant Canadian hairdresser bundled off back home with an NDA.

Bird on a Fire wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 2:24 pm

WFJ wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 1:46 pm

IvanV wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 1:36 pm
Modern mentions of "superinjunctions" being taken out are usually rubbish, as they are more or less unavailable any more.

So the Boris-hairdresser story is b.llsh.t, or the injunction he is alleged to have taken out is not technically a superinjunction.

I've not managed to find a decent source for this story, and have largely missed it. What's the goss?

Johnson had a hairdresser who was Canadian ( allegedly)

and the existence of said hairdresser was such an affront to the profession that the guild of hairdressers took out a superinjunction to keep this secret

WFJ wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 2:30 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 2:24 pm
I've not managed to find a decent source for this story, and have largely missed it. What's the goss?

Supposedly a pregnant Canadian hairdresser bundled off back home with an NDA.

More of the same then, really. Not that that's a good thing.

WFJ wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 2:30 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 2:24 pm
I've not managed to find a decent source for this story, and have largely missed it. What's the goss?

Supposedly a pregnant Canadian hairdresser bundled off back home with an NDA.

His defence to Carrie was he'd forgotten he'd left his penis inside the hairdresser. Easily done.

Little waster wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 2:25 pm

IvanV wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 2:16 pm And if you look at lists of (properly described) super-injunction cases, they dry up about 10 years ago.

It's only super-injunctions that are kept legally secret, and they are now almost impossible to obtain.

Although ... how would we know?

Such injunctions are available only as a prelude to the matter being tried in court. So we know eventually, because either the case comes to trial, or is dropped. And we haven't seen any become revealed for a long time, so it seems they aren't being taken out. There was a reform in about 2011 that is relevant.

But they are only "almost impossible" to obtain. So if one has, somehow, been taken out, then, as you say, we wouldn't know.

Similarly, if someone has been paid off in return for a NDA that they are keeping to, then we wouldn't know.

IvanV wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 2:48 pm

Little waster wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 2:25 pm

IvanV wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 2:16 pm And if you look at lists of (properly described) super-injunction cases, they dry up about 10 years ago.

It's only super-injunctions that are kept legally secret, and they are now almost impossible to obtain.

Although ... how would we know?

Such injunctions are available only as a prelude to the matter being tried in court. So we know eventually, because either the case comes to trial, or is dropped. And we haven't seen any become revealed for a long time, so it seems they aren't being taken out. There was a reform in about 2011 that is relevant.

But they are only "almost impossible" to obtain. So if one has, somehow, been taken out, then, as you say, we wouldn't know.

Similarly, if someone has been paid off in return for a NDA that they are keeping to, then we wouldn't know.

And the idea that you could get one to hide the fact that you'd received a Fixed Penalty Notice - which is a matter of public record - is ludicrous.

dyqik wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 3:03 pm

IvanV wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 2:48 pm

Little waster wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 2:25 pm

Although ... how would we know?

Such injunctions are available only as a prelude to the matter being tried in court. So we know eventually, because either the case comes to trial, or is dropped. And we haven't seen any become revealed for a long time, so it seems they aren't being taken out. There was a reform in about 2011 that is relevant.

But they are only "almost impossible" to obtain. So if one has, somehow, been taken out, then, as you say, we wouldn't know.

Similarly, if someone has been paid off in return for a NDA that they are keeping to, then we wouldn't know.

And the idea that you could get one to hide the fact that you'd received a Fixed Penalty Notice - which is a matter of public record - is ludicrous.

Which is completely on brand for anti Starmer conspiracy blogs from Momentum and Johnson supporters

Johnson getting a hairdresser pregnant is a story that’s plausible and panders to our dislike of the man, so definitely worth being sceptical about.

Grumble wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 3:45 pm Johnson getting a hairdresser pregnant is a story that’s plausible and panders to our dislike of the man, so definitely worth being sceptical about.

Is it plausible to think that that man has a hairdresser? Really?

EACLucifer wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 4:27 pm

Grumble wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 3:45 pm Johnson getting a hairdresser pregnant is a story that’s plausible and panders to our dislike of the man, so definitely worth being sceptical about.

Is it plausible to think that that man has a hairdresser? Really?

It's plausible to think that he's charging expenses for a private "hairdresser" who undertakes certain activities that result in his hair being rearranged.

EACLucifer wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 4:27 pm

Grumble wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 3:45 pm Johnson getting a hairdresser pregnant is a story that’s plausible and panders to our dislike of the man, so definitely worth being sceptical about.

Is it plausible to think that that man has a hairdresser? Really?

If true, he should have used "something for the weekend"

Daily Mail isn’t taking it well

Sir Beer Korma is hilarious though. Definitely more likely to vote for him now.

Bird on a Fire wrote: Sat Jul 09, 2022 11:31 am Sir Beer Korma is hilarious though. Definitely more likely to vote for him now.

I preferred a reply to one of those pushing for equivalence between Starmer and Johnson

"Daily Mail, ain't Korma a bitch"