Media injunctions in Ireland

My name is URL

Please do not mention any one particular case..

What is your opinion on this? I think it's a load of balls.

Can you imagine the amount of money and hours that will be lost if the country goes down this road?

chin_grin

Quick to Twitter!

im invisible

adding Oxegen to the fire...

UglyBolloxFace

Are you talking about that guy who's name rhymes with Poem MacMo?

http://img.izismile.com/img/img4/20110322/640/troll_face_in_640_10.jpg

chin_grin

im invisible wrote: »

adding oxygen to the fire...

What you did there, I see it.

gurramok

Muppet of the year goes to that bloke, its all over the papers who he is. I never mentioned his name yet

chin_grin

So I don't get a bannin' I've removed the link to what it was about in my previous comment. If ya know what I mean.

Although if you search a certain someones name on a certain site (I mentioned earlier) tis rife with speculation.

Tried to link that vid of Charlie Brooker going on about Super Injunctions but can only find the full episode. Couldn't be ar$ed.

Chuck Stone

My name is URL wrote: »

Please do not mention any one particular case..

What is your opinion on this? I think it's a load of balls.

Can you imagine the amount of money and hours that will be lost if the country goes down this road?

Ka-ching for the legal profession.

My name is URL

chin_grin wrote: »

So I don't get a bannin' I've removed the link to what it was about in my previous comment. If ya know what I mean.

Although if you search a certain someones name on a certain site (I mentioned earlier) tis rife with speculation.

Tried to link that vid of Charlie Brooker going on about Super Injunctions but can only find the full episode. Couldn't be ar$ed.

Super-injunctions are nothing. There's another type of injunction in the UK which prohibits the mentioning of any other type of injunction.

The world has well and truly lost the run of itself.

chin_grin

My name is URL wrote: »

Super-injunctions are nothing. There's another type of injunction in the UK which prohibits the mentioning of any other type of injunction.

The world has well and truly lost the run of itself.

George Orwell is spinning in his <court ordered removal of detail>.

Chucky the tree

If someone was publishing my name and a video not of me accusing me of something I'd want them to take and down and stop, I can't realy blame him for that.

chin_grin

Chucky the tree wrote: »

If someone was publishing my name and a video not of me accusing me of something I'd want them to take and down and stop, I can't realy blame him for that.

Yeah, but is it not a reverse "boy who cried "wolf" scenario. "Wolf who cried boy" if you want to be technical.

Or another way to put it is "the lady doth protest too much methinks".

Chucky the tree

chin_grin wrote: »

Yeah, but is it not a reverse "boy who cried "wolf" scenario. "Wolf who cried boy" if you want to be technical.

Or another way to put it is "the lady doth protest too much methinks".

Not really. Only from reading the articles on the injunction I've discovered he denies it's him and claims he was in Japan at the time. If he simply ignored it I'd thought it was him and he was guilty. Also from seeing his picture in the paper I actually don't think it is him either.

chin_grin

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Not really. Only from reading the articles on the injunction I've discovered he denies it's him and claims he was in Japan at the time. If he simply ignored it I'd thought it was him and he was guilty. Also from seeing his picture in the paper I actually don't think it is him either.

There's one link to a site on the site that I linked earlier (this is getting all a bit "pink elephant"), that the ticket and the date of the vid are different?!

I only heard about this when I flicked on six one and saw some chung fleh wanting people to stop talking about him, by talking about him. It's a bit strange in all fairness.

Chucky the tree

chin_grin wrote: »

There's one link to a site on the site that I linked earlier (this is getting all a bit "pink elephant"), that the ticket and the date of the vid are different?!

I only heard about this when I flicked on six one and saw some chung fleh wanting people to stop talking about him, by talking about him. It's a bit strange in all fairness.

He wants people to stop accusing him and harassing him online as supposedly.

chin_grin

Chucky the tree wrote: »

He wants people to stop accusing him and harassing him online as supposedly.

Then just do what "normal" people do and close accounts or delete and create new ones, easily done.

This is all a bit too much trouble for something so little.

Chucky the tree

chin_grin wrote: »

Then just do what "normal" people do and close accounts or delete and create new ones, easily done.

This is all a bit too much trouble for something so little.

Problem is his name would always be associated with dodging a taxi fare. Any perspective employers who google his name wouldn't be long throwing his CV in the bin.

chin_grin

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Problem is his name would always be associated with dodging a taxi fare. Any perspective employers who google his name wouldn't be long throwing his CV in the bin.

Damage is already done in all fairness. Everyone now knows his name is against this act, you can't escape The Google!

Also if an employer doesn't hire you because you dodged a fare then they're scraping the barrel for excuses.

Chucky the tree

chin_grin wrote: »

Damage is already done in all fairness. Everyone now knows his name is against this act, you can't escape The Google!

Also if an employer doesn't hire you because you dodged a fare then they're scraping the barrel for excuses.

His name is linked to it but with him also stating he has proof it wasn't him. I doubt many employers would fondly look at people who steal.

My name is URL

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Problem is his name would always be associated with dodging a taxi fare. Any perspective employers who google his name wouldn't be long throwing his CV in the bin.

That's his or her own fault. He or she doesn't seem too bothered about dragging out what would otherwise be seen as a menial dilemma. If he or she had any sense they'd walk away now; before his or her own actions catapult them into the limelight. Although that's probably what they want in the first place.. sure what will it cost them to challenge such obscure laws.. most likely a lot less than it would cost somebody to being forward a logical case.

chin_grin

My name is URL wrote: »

That's his or her own fault. He or she doesn't seem too bothered about dragging out what would otherwise be seen as a menial dilemma. If he or she had any sense they'd walk away now; before his or her own actions catapult them into the limelight. Although that's probably what they want in the first place.. sure what will it cost them to challenge such obscure laws.. most likely a lot less than it would cost somebody to being forward a logical case.

You forgot the royal "we".

Mountains out of molehills. Or super-injunctions out of injunctions.

Sindri

Chucky the tree wrote: »

He wants people to stop accusing him and harassing him online as supposedly.

I heard he wasn't in Japan but was in a homosexual brothel up to deeds of deviancy I couldn't describe.

Coriolanus

Well, whoever the injunction is about, it's working cause I have no fscking idea what you're all on about. Someone pm me so I can be one of the cool kids?

chin_grin

Nevore wrote: »

Well, whoever the injunction is about, it's working cause I have no fscking idea what you're all on about. Someone pm me so I can be one of the cool kids?

"Google motherf*cker! Do you use it?" :pac:

Chucky the tree

My name is URL wrote: »

That's his or her own fault. He or she doesn't seem too bothered about dragging out what would otherwise be seen as a menial dilemma. If he or she had any sense they'd walk away now; before his or her own actions catapult them into the limelight. Although that's probably what they want in the first place.. sure what will it cost them to challenge such obscure laws.. most likely a lot less than it would cost somebody to being forward a logical case.

Someone falsely accusing him is now his own fault?

chin_grin

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Someone falsely accusing him is now his own fault?

For having a "media hissy fit". Yeah.

Coriolanus

chin_grin wrote: »

"Google motherf*cker! Do you use it?" :pac:

yeah, but who am I supposed to google?!

Sindri

Fuck this, lets start a campaign where we insinuate that this chap has committed loads more crimes. We should start a thread for it.


We'll be like civil rights protesters during the 60's except we'll be able to tan and sit where we want on buses.

gurramok

I'm curious, how can the person in question at such a young age afford to bring the case in the first place?

MagicSean

If the video is not of him then how has he any right to have it removed? The mere fact that he has obtained the injunction is surely proof it was him.

Spook_ie

If it's not him wouldn't the money he spent on the injunction have been better spent on hiring a private detective to find the real guy?

Then sue the taxi driver for saying it was him AND sue the guy for impersonating him?

mikemac1

OP asks not to mention the case so I won't

The barrister said

looking to have the material permanently removed from the internet

Some action can be taken but it's the old story of tearing open a feather pillow on a windy day

All of what's out there cannot be taken back

Ellis Dee

gurramok wrote: »

I'm curious, how can the person in question at such a young age afford to bring the case in the first place?

I suppose he can't afford it, but has a daddy with loads of dosh, little sense and poor judgement. A case of the apple not having fallen far from the tree, it looks like. It could also be that daddy's fat bank balance matches the arrogance that is often a characteristic of the Irish ruling class, a belief that they are entitled to respect just because of what they are and that they are not subject to the same rules as the ordinary Paddy and Biddy. Unfortunately for them, they sometimes are. :D

Naturally, if someone posted a video showing someone that looked like me committing a despicable and criminal act and I knew that I hadn't even been in the country at the time, I'd immediately contact the Gardai and the media (and the victim of the crime) to prove to them that it wasn't me and I would hope that the video in question would get even wider circulation so that the real perpetrator is quickly caught.

I doubt whether the injunction will be able to prevent enterprising print and radio journalists interviewing the crime victim, inviting the injunction-seeker to meet up with him, to prove conclusively that he isn't the criminal, and thereby keeping this matter in the limelight and the important theme of the rich thinking they are above the law active in the national discourse.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

It is interesting that yesterday's Indo had a report of an injunction being sought and there was room for comments after the article, but this was quickly removed.:rolleyes:

jack presley

I'm finding the reporting on this 'case that shall not be named' hilarious. Even now there are reports on various sites reporting that Xxxx XxXxxx has gone to court to prevent his name being included. But his name is right there. The Herald even has his picture!

Temptamperu

I think it sets a terrible precident, if he who shant be named wins this case then whats to stop others following suit, corporations will jump on it and get themselves taken out of the news, politicians could hide behind it. I know we all like to joke here but unless your man has absolute proof it wasnt him then he shouldnt be allowed strong arm the media

Chucky the tree

Temptamperu wrote: »

I think it sets a terrible precident, if he who shant be named wins this case then whats to stop others following suit, corporations will jump on it and get themselves taken out of the news, politicians could hide behind it. I know we all like to joke here but unless your man has absolute proof it wasnt him then he shouldnt be allowed strong arm the media

Really hate the idea of people being guillty until proven innocent.

BunShopVoyeur

Sindri wrote: »

Fuck this, lets start a campaign where we insinuate that this chap has committed loads more crimes. We should start a thread for it.


We'll be like civil rights protesters during the 60's except we'll be able to tan and sit where we want on buses.

I heard he beats disabled toddlers.

Temptamperu

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Really hate the idea of people being guillty until proven innocent.

Well to be fair hes acting really guilty.

mcmoustache

Yesterday I had no idea who this guy was. Then I read this thread, googled a bit and found the video.

Now I've seen a video of a guy called E*** who looks just like the guy in the court picture pretending to take money from his friends and then legging it out of the taxi some time later.

The video is date-stamped, an identifiable phone number is read out, the picture quality is decent, the others in the car could be identified with some work - it would be easy so easy to prove what happened and who was there,

Since my ability to discuss this is severely hampered by the injunction, I only have the video to consider so I think that the guy in the video is guilty. As for the identity of the guy in the video, given how easy it is to identify people from a video with audio in a particular location in ireland at a particular time, I can only assume that the guy taking out the injunction and the guy in the video are the same person. I could be wrong but without more information, what else can I assume?

Without the injunction, I would never have even thought about this and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Was this guy in a coma during the English injunction fiasco of last year? Does he not remember how all this blew up in the faces of some high-profile people? Has he never seen how the internet works?

This is going to be scrutinised by the public now and it'll be interesting how it all pans out.

On a side note, if you google the phone number read out in the taxi, it leads to an ad on donedeal for a Honda Integra boy-racer-mobile. The ad states "has been lying up for 6 months quick sale needed as leaving country". The seller's first name matches that of the guy taking out the injunction although the spelling is slightly different.

An ad on gumtree also comes up asking for a copper cylinder to be taken away from a house and there's a google-map marker on the page pointing to an address in Monkstown. Another ad on the same site sells tickets for Florence and the Machine to be collected at the same address.

This is all circumstantial but surely the owner of that phone number from Monkstown with the same first name as Injunction Guy should come forward and do the decent thing by clearing up this possible case of mistaken identity?

Bureaucrat

These orders are a threat to Democracy and free speech laws. They should not be allowed really.

Mercurius

To be fair, in the broadsheet.ie article from yesterday, he who shall not be named looks nothing like the guy in the taxi.

baldbear

Does the certain irish soccer player have a injunction in ireland as well as the UK?? MR fantastic himself..

44leto

LOL at the neck of the guy, but the taxi man who uploaded the vid in the first place has the right to do so, its his material and his property.

So how has a court got a right from stopping him from doing so. The alleged person if it is him is a thieving dishonorable fuk and I wouldn't employ him either.

It was just a case of an apology and heres the fare with a generous tip, but no, now this has the potential of getting international coverage.

mcmoustache

Mercurius wrote: »

To be fair, in the broadsheet.ie article from yesterday, he who shall not be named looks nothing like the guy in the taxi.

The video is from before christmas and the court case was after. He may have put on a bit of weight,,,

Personally, I think the solution to all this is to identify the owner of the phone number that was read out in the taxi.

lemme

If the guy with the injunction isn't the guy in the video I can't for the life of me understand why he involved himself like this. sure, maybe his name was mentioned as a possible when the video was first broadcast. im sure there are plenty of people with the same name. i googled my own name thinking i was the only one worldwide (pretty unheard of first and surname together) but to my suprise i found 3 the same. if he really felt strongly about it he should have hired a private investigator to bring the real culprit to the attention of the media. its such a small country, surley someone must know the real guy, why isn't his name been thrown around.

gurramok

I concur with mcmoustache. Due to the curiosity factor and publicity, now i've downloaded the video for safekeeping. Perhaps there is another bloke with the same name in the neighbourhood, there is one of mine but my name is quite common. A googlefight of both my first and second names returns a few hundred thousand clones of me

By the way, what have the Garda got to say about this? Was anyone arrested and charged over not paying the taxi fare?

WolfForager

Thanks to this injunction i'm having an awfully hard time finding this video. I shall persevere though.

EDIT: Found it, cheers google!

44leto

gurramok wrote: »

I concur with mcmoustache. Due to the curiosity factor and publicity, now i've downloaded the video for safekeeping. Perhaps there is another bloke with the same name in the neighbourhood, there is one of mine but my name is quite common. A googlefight of both my first and second names returns a few hundred thousand clones of me

By the way, what have the Garda got to say about this? Was anyone arrested and charged over not paying the taxi fare?

I don't know if his name was mentioned in the taxi but the truth is video evidence wont convict, all the perp has to say is no that is not me and then it is hard to prove it is him. There is new facial recognition tech been applied in some places in Britain which will address this.

mcmoustache

44leto wrote: »

I don't know if his name was mentioned in the taxi but the truth is video evidence wont convict, all the perp has to say is no that is not me and then it is hard to prove it is him. There is new facial recognition tech been applied in some places in Britain which will address this.

He was addressed by his friends as **** - the same first name of Injunction Guy. Also, he read out his phone number to one of the friends. Identifying the owner of that phone number is the key to all this.

Googling the phone number gets you an ad on donedeal from a guy with the same name with a different spelling from Monkstown. The ad contains a picture of the car parked in what I assume to be the address of its owner. The house opposite has a roof shape which isn't too common around Monkstown but I wasn't able to identify it with google maps. I'm just not familiar enough with the area. A local from the area would probably be able to identify the house from which the car was being sold.

This would tell us exactly who dodged the fare since we have his number, his first name, his picture, his car reg, his locality and a picture of the house opposite his. I'm really surprised that the internet kids haven't done this already.

44leto

mcmoustache wrote: »

He was addressed by his friends as **** - the same first name of Injunction Guy. Also, he read out his phone number to one of the friends. Identifying the owner of that phone number is the key to all this.

Googling the phone number gets you an ad on donedeal from a guy with the same name with a different spelling from Monkstown. The ad contains a picture of the car parked in what I assume to be the address of its owner. The house opposite has a roof shape which isn't too common around Monkstown but I wasn't able to identify it with google maps. I'm just not familiar enough with the area. A local from the area would probably be able to identify the house from which the car was being sold.

This would tell us exactly who dodged the fare since we have his number, his first name, his picture, his car reg, his locality and a picture of the house opposite his. I'm really surprised that the internet kids haven't done this already.

LOL great bit of work by you. You seem to have removed all reasonable doubt.

So why isn't the Garda pursuing this, why isn't the taximan. This chap is set to win twat of the year and it is only January.

orangebud

is this the vid?
<snip>