Thursday, May 26, 2011
The Public Domain, YouGov and Ryan Giggs
YouGov performed a survey of people to find out what proportion knew "the secret" before I mentioned it in the House of Commons.
Of the total sample of 2,442 82% were sure they knew, 14% were sure that they didn't know and 4% didn't know whether they knew or not. Of the 82% 3% got the name wrong, but 79% got the name right.
From the perspective of the "Law of Confidentiality" I would argue, therefore, that the name was already in the public domain.
This really highlights the total absurdity of the situation. posted by John Hemming ¶ 8:52 am
Of the total sample of 2,442 82% were sure they knew, 14% were sure that they didn't know and 4% didn't know whether they knew or not. Of the 82% 3% got the name wrong, but 79% got the name right.
From the perspective of the "Law of Confidentiality" I would argue, therefore, that the name was already in the public domain.
This really highlights the total absurdity of the situation. posted by John Hemming ¶ 8:52 am
Comments:
<< Home
The injunction was issued by a judge that clearly cannot interpret the human rights act.
Had The Sun climbed a ladder to film the affair then it would be a very different matter, however in this case it was a 'private matter' one of the parties at least seemed to want to make public.
So I don't think there were grounds to make the injunction in the first instance, any other matters such as blackmail should of been dealt with as a criminal matter.
John Hemming - A true public servant.
Had The Sun climbed a ladder to film the affair then it would be a very different matter, however in this case it was a 'private matter' one of the parties at least seemed to want to make public.
So I don't think there were grounds to make the injunction in the first instance, any other matters such as blackmail should of been dealt with as a criminal matter.
John Hemming - A true public servant.
Of course it's absurd. But then it's all absurd, as is the hysterical reaction by the lawyers to your actions. You do have parliamentary privilege, they say, but you certainly mustn't use it, you bad man!
In truth Giggs himself doesn't greatly matter, but the underlying principle is of the greatest importance to all of us, whether we realise it or not.
And your work relating to the all-under-a-blanket secrecy of our family courts is a true public service. I have no personal interest here, but as a law student I came to realise years ago that something really quite sinister was occurring. There would be general outrage if some of the judgments and decisions these courts make could be publicised.
Notwithstanding all the abuse, what you are doing is important to all of us who do actually believe in free speech. Were I able, I'd vote for you! Good luck and best wishes.
Post a Comment
In truth Giggs himself doesn't greatly matter, but the underlying principle is of the greatest importance to all of us, whether we realise it or not.
And your work relating to the all-under-a-blanket secrecy of our family courts is a true public service. I have no personal interest here, but as a law student I came to realise years ago that something really quite sinister was occurring. There would be general outrage if some of the judgments and decisions these courts make could be publicised.
Notwithstanding all the abuse, what you are doing is important to all of us who do actually believe in free speech. Were I able, I'd vote for you! Good luck and best wishes.
<< Home
