ChatterBank6 mins ago
Answers
We'd really prefer you didn't guess. We'd especially prefer you didn't guess correctly!
13:49 Mon 03rd Jun 2013
If ever there was a story with the tag line " Buy tomorrow's edition for the next exciting development" this is it. Will the Prime Minister be freed from his binding to the railway track by the evil villain before the locomotive arrives? Does eating cause cancer? Buy now, for next week's instalment in your fearless Daily Mail,the paper that sells [Should this be 'tells' ? Ed.] truth as we imagine it is !
What legal reasons ? Libel, because claims of sex or adultery are libellous in the absence of any proof, or at all ? The DM must have got good lawyers; neither claim is necessarily libellous. Because there is some 'super injunction' preventing the publication of the fact there is an injunction (DM, do try to keep up; these are ineffectual in the end but, in any case, are no longer acceptable to judges). If the latter, why is the DM giving any details at all ?
What legal reasons ? Libel, because claims of sex or adultery are libellous in the absence of any proof, or at all ? The DM must have got good lawyers; neither claim is necessarily libellous. Because there is some 'super injunction' preventing the publication of the fact there is an injunction (DM, do try to keep up; these are ineffectual in the end but, in any case, are no longer acceptable to judges). If the latter, why is the DM giving any details at all ?
The Cameron leadership is rapidly unravelling to resemble the hapless John Major's reign of error.
- the Party infighting over Europe
- questins for cash
- sleaze
- a useless Chancellor.
History repeating.
-------
We may be in super injunction territory here. That is the only legal shackle that would prevent the Mail publishing a true story. Certainly would not be libelous.
- the Party infighting over Europe
- questins for cash
- sleaze
- a useless Chancellor.
History repeating.
-------
We may be in super injunction territory here. That is the only legal shackle that would prevent the Mail publishing a true story. Certainly would not be libelous.
Not much help in naming the culprits, but this hints at a super injunction
http:// inagist .com/al l/34097 9586684 821504/
http://
From a blog.
// The suspects are not Homos–that eliminates most Lib-Dems and 80% of the Conservative Party. They are not members of the cabinet. They are “middle-aged” The affair is in the past, dating back to pre-2008, but “dynamite”. It will be damaging to the Government, so it must involve figures from the Conservative party (no one would give a hoot if a Lib-Dem was shagging a giraffe in Trafalgar Square). Both parties must be prominent as a male prominente doodling a mere piece of office furniture would not be news. //
The two names I have seen do not shock me at all, so could be completely wrong. I can't seen how they could be a problem for Cameron either, so again, not sure if they are correct.
Will keep an eye on Guido.
// The suspects are not Homos–that eliminates most Lib-Dems and 80% of the Conservative Party. They are not members of the cabinet. They are “middle-aged” The affair is in the past, dating back to pre-2008, but “dynamite”. It will be damaging to the Government, so it must involve figures from the Conservative party (no one would give a hoot if a Lib-Dem was shagging a giraffe in Trafalgar Square). Both parties must be prominent as a male prominente doodling a mere piece of office furniture would not be news. //
The two names I have seen do not shock me at all, so could be completely wrong. I can't seen how they could be a problem for Cameron either, so again, not sure if they are correct.
Will keep an eye on Guido.