Report comment

The judges after appraising the evidence to date decided to allow an interim injunction more for the purpose of gathering more information for an expected trial than the legal issue where a NDA currently means exactly that, non disclosure. the senior judges cant reinvent the law.

of course the press will object as they were prevented from releasing speculation on a famous person in order to increase circulation. the NDA argument whilst valid under current law is a red herring as is freedom of the press who are in the main a pack of wild dogs that consistently degenerate society whilst falsely claiming ridiculous credentials. be clear about this, the press are motivated by profits first and morals a long way behind.

the commentator below is confused as to how the law works, it is clear that the Judges had no other course of action and a trial to test allegations after the press have vilified an individual are almost futile .

whether the law changes as a result of this case is another matter but it is quite wrong for this unelected politician to name sir Philip Green claiming parliamentary privilege . it was in my view a criminal act and he should be removed from the house of Lords.

it must surely by now be even clearer that this politician abused his power the effect of which means that the police will now find it much more difficult to conduct an investigation and the accused has no chance of a fair trial whatsoever.

is this how our judiciary should be run ? i think not, i for one do not trust a single filthy red top journo or publication to abide by the law if they can get away with it. they should be prosecuted under criminal law when they print damaging information.

in the publics interest? at what possible level can this case be relevant to the general public other than to satisfy its degenerative and insatiable appetite for Salacious news without concern for the full facts.

we live by the law, if the citizens want to change it they can but we must all accept that the system of law must be upheld until it is changed. the increasingly vile practice of guilty by popular opinion is nothing short of mob rule.

if the commentator below wants an example of public interest then read the Cliff Richard story which is one amongst many others that the press and media got wrong and then ask yourself if that is a society you want to live in. if it happened to you and you were not guilty you would be rightly enraged .

lastly no one should be in doubt that a free responsible press is paramount to a free society as is the power of parliamentary privilege , sadly however that is increasingly not the case with a large part of the press and media out of control and daft old duffers such as Hain full of there own importance.