Page 2 of 5
Re: Nothing matters anyway
Posted: Mon May 23, 2011 9:15 am
by Phil Neatherway
Phew. We're still here. Until December 21 2012 at any rate.
Re: Nothing matters anyway
Posted: Mon May 23, 2011 9:24 am
by John Upham
Phil Neatherway wrote:Phew. We're still here. Until December 21 2012 at any rate.
We were hoping to save on this months ASDA bill so that was a bit of a disappointment.
Apparently, It would seem that events have been put back until October 21, 2011 so at least we will have time to see the new season in.
Curiously
http://www.may-212011.com/ is now devoid of content!
I assume that chess in the Surrey area has not been affected any more than any where else?
Happy birthday to Anatoly Yevgenyevich Karpov who is 60 today!
Re: Nothing matters anyway
Posted: Mon May 23, 2011 10:04 am
by Alex McFarlane
The resemblance between the two Geoffs is amazing!!
Well spotted Simon.
Re: Nothing matters anyway
Posted: Mon May 23, 2011 10:41 am
by LozCooper
John Upham wrote:Phil Neatherway wrote:
Apparently, It would seem that events have been put back until October 21, 2011 so at least we will have time to see the new season in.
Time to attend another ECF election meeting then
In fact, it may encourage more people to stand to be ECF Directors if they know they will only be in the post for less than a week
Re: Nothing matters anyway
Posted: Mon May 23, 2011 4:50 pm
by Jonathan Bryant
Poor old Ryan Giggs. If the world had ended he'd have got away with it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog ... -live-blog
(link provided in case Carl or the mods have a super-injunction related fit)
Re: Nothing matters anyway
Posted: Mon May 23, 2011 5:05 pm
by Carl Hibbard
It's made the BBC News so we are probably safe, unlike poor little Ryan
Re: Nothing matters anyway
Posted: Mon May 23, 2011 5:06 pm
by David Sedgwick
Carl Hibbard wrote:
It's made the BBC News so we are probably safe, unlike poor little Ryan
I'm not so sure. However, your site, your call.
Re: Nothing matters anyway
Posted: Mon May 23, 2011 5:14 pm
by Jonathan Bryant
David Sedgwick wrote:Carl Hibbard wrote:
It's made the BBC News so we are probably safe, unlike poor little Ryan
I'm not so sure. However, your site, your call.
it's on the BBC's five live (radio) now. And the telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/t ... n-row.html
It's all over for little Ryan I'm afraid. Silly sod.
Re: Nothing matters anyway
Posted: Mon May 23, 2011 5:19 pm
by Ian Kingston
Twitter has apparently also stopped censoring its Trending list: 'Ryan Giggs' has reappeared in the Top 10.
Re: Nothing matters anyway
Posted: Mon May 23, 2011 5:29 pm
by Paul McKeown
Named by John Hemmings in the Commons using Parliamentary Privilege. Busted injunction - this site - nor any other - cannot be done for reporting proceedings in the Commons or for common knowledge either.
Re: Nothing matters anyway
Posted: Mon May 23, 2011 5:31 pm
by Rob Thompson
Paul McKeown wrote:Named by John Hemmings in the Commons using Parliamentary Privilege. Busted injunction.
I wouldn't be so sure. It's not that simple with regards to contempt law. Just because he has revealed the name, doesn't necessarily remove the injunction.
Re: Nothing matters anyway
Posted: Mon May 23, 2011 5:32 pm
by Paul McKeown
Rob Thompson wrote:Paul McKeown wrote:Named by John Hemmings in the Commons using Parliamentary Privilege. Busted injunction.
I wouldn't be so sure. It's not that simple with regards to contempt law. Just because he has revealed the name, doesn't necessarily remove the injunction.
Can you state in what way Parliamentary Privilege is not absolute in this regard?
Re: Nothing matters anyway
Posted: Mon May 23, 2011 5:36 pm
by Carl Hibbard
David Sedgwick wrote:Carl Hibbard wrote:
It's made the BBC News so we are probably safe, unlike poor little Ryan
I'm not so sure. However, your site, your call.
The report is everywhere now so I don't see it as a problem...
Re: Nothing matters anyway
Posted: Mon May 23, 2011 5:47 pm
by Jonathan Bryant
Paul McKeown wrote:Rob Thompson wrote:Paul McKeown wrote:Named by John Hemmings in the Commons using Parliamentary Privilege. Busted injunction.
I wouldn't be so sure. It's not that simple with regards to contempt law. Just because he has revealed the name, doesn't necessarily remove the injunction.
Can you state in what way Parliamentary Privilege is not absolute in this regard?
THere was some gap between Giggs being named in Parliament and most news sources naming the person who'd been named.
At first many (e.g. BBC radio, Independent website, Telegraph website) were saying that the footballer had been named in Parliament but not saying who the footballer was.
The Guardian, on the other hand, just came out with it and said it was Giggs.
BBC radio justified their initial reticence by saying Parliamentary Privilege meant that John Hemmings could say what he wanted but they wanted a double check legal opinion as to whether they could report fully what he said.
Re: Nothing matters anyway
Posted: Mon May 23, 2011 5:48 pm
by Jonathan Bryant
Rob Thompson wrote: Just because he has revealed the name, doesn't necessarily remove the injunction.
I believe that at the time of writing the injunction is technically still in place - but clearly it's not going to be enforceable. I also think I'm right in saying that The Sun have gone back to court (after losing earlier today) to get it formally removed.
I'd be very surprised if this wasn't on every front page tomorrow morning.