If ever there was proof that the 'super injunction' is as flawed as it is ridiculous here we have the case of Fred the Shred aka Sir Frederick Anderson Goodwin, former head at the time of the collapsing Royal Bank of Scotland - seeking and obtaining an injunction to - supposedly - prevent him being referred to as a banker.
So let's start with the obvious - he was in charge of the Royal BANK of Scotland ....so no association with a bank there. Next and related to the same if one looks at his Wikipedia page he is described (correctly and generously one could argue) as an accountant and banker.
As reported in the Telegraph and the Guardian Sir Fred - the BANKER - Shred obtained this spurious legal construct that is meant to prevent the media from referring to him as a BANKER.
He was in charge of a BANK that collapsed and had to be bailed out by the public purse. It was - among other things a BANK and he was in charge of that BANK. So while he could arguably complain and secure an injunction about being called a wanker, how a court could have agreed to grant an injunction preventing him being referred to as a BANKER seems absurd. Because of the nature of the super injunction we do not even know the terms upon which it was granted. What Mediabeak would say is that given we do not know the terms of this injunction nor, for its secrecy do we know about it, how can we supposedly be bound by it and how can it seek to prevent the description of someone as a banker when clearly, obectively, publicly and factually they are one.
Maybe that's where it all went wrong - Fred the Shred is NO BANKER - so why was he in charge of a BANK?
No comments:
Post a Comment