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
-
What can republican political thought teach the Liberal Democrats? (Daniel Duggan)
-
Mathew on Monday: Prime Minister, it’s time to restore our freedom to move across Europe (Mathew Hulbert)
-
London’s football pitch crisis is freezing out disabled children. We must stop treating inclusion as a charity luxury (Jean-François Burford)
-
Is kindness what we stand for? (Josh Matthews)
-
Don’t take Democracy for granted (Lord William Wallace)
-
Myth and mystery on the Stiperstones ridge
-
Perhaps the most pointless question PMs are asked (LDN#215)
-
Wes Streeting is a twerp
-
David Chadwick set to become next leader of Welsh Lib Dems
-
David Hemmings film of David Bowie concert tour to be seen at last
-
How slowness at the Treasury cost taxpayers millions
-
Conservative councillor Paul Dick joins the Lib Dems
-
Ianto's shrine to be saved
-
Walkabout
-
Talbot Street and Church Street, Ellesmere
Recent Comments
Alex Macfie
"…a small number of technology companies hold enormous power over markets and the people who depend on their platforms." and government policy, not properly o...
Nonconformistradical
@Mark https://www.libdems.org.uk/conference#c351200 is stating that registration will be open in November...
Mick Taylor
@Adam. How little you know about the holocaust. My grandfather was one of the many Jewish soldiers who fought in the First World War and he won the Iron Cross....
Richard Spate
During the run up to the dreaded Brexit vote Paddy Ashdown made an interesting predictive comment regarding us leaving the E.U. He said: 'If we leave the E.U...
Mark
It would be great if next year Lib Dem Voice really promotes and informs members about early bird registration rates. Conference is expensive. We need to ensu...
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.