im invisible wrote: » adding oxygen to the fire...
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?
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
Chucky the tree wrote: » He wants people to stop accusing him and harassing him online as supposedly.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Chucky the tree wrote: » Someone falsely accusing him is now his own fault?
chin_grin wrote: » "Google motherf*cker! Do you use it?" :pac:
