Sir Fred Goodwin, the former chief executive of the Royal Bank of Scotland who became a focal point for anger over the financial crisis, has obtained a super-injunction banning the media from identifying him as a banker.
The existence of the super-injunction was revealed today by John Hemming, a back-bench Liberal Democrat MP who tabled a question in Parliament about the gagging order.
Normally the media is forbidden from even reporting that a super-injunction exists but Parliamentary privilege allows MPs to speak on the floor of the House of Commons without risk of prosecution.
Subscribe
-
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
-
Like us on Facebook
-
Subscribe to our feed
-
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Most Read
Search
Op-eds
-
Liberals and the unions: time to talk again (Jack Meredith)
-
Andy Burnham’s NHS record: Devolution, delivery and the limits of local power (Iain Donaldson)
-
Huge victory for Campaign for Gigi (Tom Morrison)
-
Andy Burnham’s record on policing: Success story or missed opportunity? (Iain Donaldson)
-
Burnham: Strategic implications (Paul Reynolds)
-
Lib Dems pick Richard Kilpatrick as candidate for the Greater Manchester Mayoral election
-
The Joy of Six 1538
-
Professor Joad sees his play at the Theatre Royal, Northampton
-
The DVLA's problem with number plates
-
Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons: The Night
-
School uniform, boys in skirts and Marcuse's 'repressive tolerance'
-
We have no idea what history will say about Keir Starmer and it may not be right anyway
-
Lib Dem billboards attack Farage's £5m "reward for Brexit"
-
Is Kier Starmer the new John Major?
Recent Comments
Peter Chambers
Paul, thanks for this incisive piece on the relationship between the Labour Party and the privation of state provision in the UK. I agree with much of what you ...
Carl Pierce
Sam - Your not alone. Ill be ashamed if my party treats you unfairly....
Martin Eggleston
@Tom Bailey we have our very own example in the UK; Wally Stott composed the Hancocks Half Hour theme tune and was the arranger for many Goon Shows, and albums ...
Peter Hirst
Related to this concern for standards in nursery care, should we be looking at the metric of school readiness? It is shocking that so few children are ready for...- Peter Hirst
Private ownership and full nationalisation are the two extremes of the possibilities for ownerhship of services delivered for a community with a variable monop...
9 Comments
How sad for those of you living in the UK. You lack the basic tenets of freedom of speech and press. Can we get the name of the judge who gave this super injunction ? I guess his or her identity is secret too. What irony, I bet the citizens of Egypt now have greater freedoms of expression than citizsens of the UK, LOL.
Someone call Max Clifford. This man needs some PR advice!
And somewhat inevitably, #fredgoodwinisabanker is now trending on Twitter!
At first I thought it was typo, I know many people have used a word similar to banker to describe Mr Goodwin….
So we can no longer refer to Sir Fred Goodwin as a “banker”. OK, so what can we call him? Suggestions on a postcard …
….a complete banker?
Need I remind people that the collective noun for a group of bankers is a wunch?
The lawyers who push these superinjunctions are really not advising their clients very well. Look what happened with Trafigura and now this is all over the internet and probably result in more damage that would otherwise have been the case.
As to an appropriate description for “bankers” such as Goodwin (rather than good old fashioned bankers who used to take a turn between borrowing and lending rates and performed a valuable role in matching savers and borrowers) would be dealers or casino operators or similar.
I wonder what the injunction actually said and if it really says you can’t describe him as a banker or someone is just taking a mischeiviously over restrictive interpretiation to point up the ridiculousness of some super-injunctions.
That was really what happened with Trafigura as really the Guardian very cleverly promoted an overly restrictive view on what they could say rather than going back to the court to clarify the point.