What Injunctions?

[terambulan]

What's this for.....as written at top of site

"......

Important notice
Please note: Anyone asking about or attempting to name people involved in legal cases where injunctions or anonymity are in place will have their accounts terminated.
..........."

[jno]

sometimes a court order will ban publication of the defendant's name, or maybe a witness's - perhaps because the person is under age, or perhaps because there are other court hearings to come involving the same person and they don't want to prejudice the case. There are other injunctions that might stop a bit of evidence being published. Presumably if anyone posted them on AB the Ed would be hauled off in chains (if they ever found her).

[andy-hughes]

The owners of the AB would potentially face a Contempt Of Court charge if any evidence referring to ongoing legal cases which is not in the public arena was published on here.

It's perfectly possible - anyone as a relative or friend of an accused may be privvy to private information, and posting on here would predjudice the case, so in order to make it obvious that the AB owners have taken reasonable steps to ensure that this does not happen, they will come round and break wind in your kitchen if you disobey!

[Gromit]

Anyone know who the Ex-Manchester City player is who was blackmailed over compromising photos by an ex-teammate?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/ 7553775.stm

[Kromovaracun]

Wait, wait, wait....

Does this mean that... that... AB has mods?

[New Judge]

Much of the legislation relevant to this sort of thing has not kept pace with the times.

For example, the Children and Young Persons� Act has Section 39 which can be used by courts to prevent the publication of the details of young people involved in court cases (be they defendants or witnesses). However, the law refers specifically to newspapers. The editor of a newspaper can be brought to book if his paper prints any prohibited details.

However, the same law does not cover internet publication such as on this site. If an AB user were to attend a court where a Section 39 order was made, and then mentioned the prohibited details in a post on this site, I believe it would not be possible to successfully prosecute the editor of AB in the same way as a prosecution could be brought against a newspaper editor.

Newspaper editors have specific responsibilities under the law which they, in their professional capacity, are aware of. The same responsibilities do not apply to the public and on sites such as this it is they, not the AB editor, who are "publishing".

Nonetheless, to remain within the spirit of the law, AB has decided that it will not tolerate people publishing sensitive or prohibited details on its site even if, technically, no law has been broken.

[MrBen5]

Hmmm, i know who it is Gromit. But answerbank forbids me to name any details.
All i will say is, you can work it out by deduction.
The first clue is.
1.How many players have left man city in the last 14 months?
No more clues for now, but half the population probably already know.
I am not too sure actually how they would find out who posted the name on here actually as you can sign up from a free email.
Also, i hear you can give initials and other certain clues as long as you dont actually name the person, but not too sure how true this is...

[Gromit]

Not much of a clue MrBen5, the rats have been leaving the good ship city in vast numbers recently...

Stephen Jordan
Trevor Sinclair
DaMarcus Beasley
Hatem Trabelsi
Nicky Weaver
Joey Barton
Sylvain Distin
Matthew Mills
Ishmael Miller
Danny Mills
Bernardo Corradi
Season Loan
Paul Dickov
Georgios Samaras
Geovanni
Emile Mpenza
Andreas Isaksson
Sun Jihai

[sp1814]

In the same vein, I know that it wasn't John Leslie who allegedly raped Ulrika Johnsson.

I will never say who it was (keeping within the spirit of AB and all that), but he's famous too.

[Oneeyedvic]

SP - hmmmm fancy a snack?