Sunday, March 18, 2012

Stephen Sedley

, a former court and court of appeal judge, became one of the inputs to the more sober and judicious debate, often febrile privacy.

In fact, his article in the

London Review of Books

, Goodwin and Giggs program is probably the best exhibition of the recent confrontation between individual sovereignty of parliament and the courts.

It leaves readers with no doubt as to the disobedience of the MPs who defied the courts by appointing persons who had obtained court orders anonymous.

It reminds us once again - although some publishers, noble manors MPs and refuse to admit - that Parliament enacted the Law on Human Rights in 1998, which contained a specific clause protecting the right to private and family life.

Sedley wrote. "What the tabloids did not like is that the law now recognizes that celebrities are also aspects of their private lives that are"

And he blames the media disrespect for court orders for the birth of the superinjunction. They were, he said, "applied in the courtyard by the weakening of his repeated requests." He continues:

"observers with a sense of history have noted that the tabloids of self-justification, advanced on behalf of freedom of the press, reflects that of an authoritarian state.

The Sun


Jane Moore

warns errant public figures, "If 't want that your privacy splashed across the newspapers, then you behave. "

Or, as was once, if you have nothing to hide have nothing to fear -. As there is only one way to the state or the sun can tell you if you behave

was in February that the current crisis was announced at

David Cameron
dangerously spoken in parliament about the Supreme Court ruling that some offenders sex must be able, over time, to request that struck off the register, calling it "totally offensive" and contrary to common sense, an attack considered by the Minister of the Interior (which has seen fit to challenge question the reasonableness of the decision), but sharply criticized the


Blog Archive