Want to have an extra-marital affair and keep it a secret from your spouse? Thinking about offloading toxic waste in Africa and would like to avoid the publicity? You’ve come to the right place – read on.

We’re aware that many of our readers have secrets, after all, people who call themselves things like gopher, island1, tee, guest, Outsider, Decoy, odrzut and so on are hardly inviting the spotlight into their private lives, are they. Until now, keeping these secrets safe was only possible if you were a celebrity or football player and could afford the 250-750,000 PLN cost of a “super-injunction” but the team at Polandian think this runs contrary to various basic human rights, certainly within the EU, and so we’ve launched our brand new range of “Polandi-junctions”. Available to all our readers and indeed anyone else who’s interested they come in a flexible range of options to suit your needs and finances:

  • Buy One Get One Free offers for footballers, politicians and celebrities.
  • Group discounts available
  • Lower rates for the under 12’s and the over 65’s.

This ground-shifting initiative brings the peace of mind of the super-injunction within the reach of normal people and for a very affordable outlay will give you the freedom to to get out there and be as bad as you like without the worry of consequences! Surely a giant leap for social justice.

As the idea of super-injunctions has not yet caught on in Poland (or perhaps they have but we don’t know about it because they are being upheld) there’s a handy guide – HERE or HERE. Essentially they are a turbo-charged version of what used to be called gagging orders, which prevent certain information being published and also prevent anyone from saying that there is a super-injunction in place – although I’m struggling with how that last part works.

Outside of Poland they are big news. Tune in to Sky News right now for example (not that you can!) and you’ll hear all about the happily (not for long) married Premier League footballer who’s super-injunction has annoyed the hell out of a former Big Brother contestant with whom he is supposed to have had a 6 month affair. The super-injunction he has put in place prevents her from revealing who he is although this hasn’t stopped her getting herself back into the warm glow of media attention she was no doubt missing after her time in the Big Brother house. Also hasn’t stopped the accusations that she was trying to blackmail him.

What makes the whole idea of super-injunctions just a little bit silly is that if you search on Twitter for about 3 nanoseconds you’ll find out exactly who the footballer is, or at least who thousands of Twits think he is – and you have to assume the Twits are right. Therein lies the problem and the reason for the wall-to-wall news coverage, these pesky social networking sites are preventing a lot of very nice lawyers from getting as rich as they’d like to be and will soon put an end to a very lucrative line of business. The unfolding story goes that the afore-not-mentioned footballer will be suing Twitter for releasing this information and he’s not the first case of a clash between UK super-injunction lawyers and US social networking corporations. An attempt to deal with this means that more recent injunctions include specific reference to as many possible leakage points as they can – from here:

Last week also saw the first injunction specifically targeting new media. In the case of a woman who wants to withdraw life support from her brain-damaged daughter, a court ordered that details of the matter not be discussed in “any newspaper, magazine, public computer network, internet site, social network or media including Twitter or Facebook, sound or television broadcast or cable or satellite programme service.”

Yesterday it was revealed that Twitter was named in a lawsuit filed at the High Court in London to enforce a super-injunction. The case is listed as CTB v. Twitter, Inc., and Persons Unknown — the anonymous tweeters. According to Bloomberg, “CTB are the initials used by the court in a separate lawsuit to refer to an athlete who won an anonymity order banning the media from publishing stories about his alleged affair with a reality-television star.”

The question everyone’s now asking is, can super-injunctions really be enforced against companies based in the U.S., where the Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint.

It remains to be seen where all this mess will end up. Personally, I think they, like the rest of us, should think about the consequences before they do whatever they do and if they get caught they should be man/woman-enough to deal with the outcome but money and fame do strange things to people.

In Poland we shall have to see if these things take off, although according to this report, Poles are under more surveillance than any other country in the European Union so I can’t see the authorities here agreeing to anything that might make your private life less accessible to them!


4 thoughts on “Polandi-junctions

  1. Lee says:

    What a farce. The English courts think they can stop people abroad posting information on websites based abroad.

    I’m having a lot of fun re-posting the links where the people mentioned in these injunctions are named…sod the consequences!

    There is far too much secrecy in this country, and if, in my own small way I can help abolish a law that is wrong, well I shall continue doing what I’m doing.

    If people aren’t allowed to know the truth they will make up their own truths which will be far more entertaining and unfortunately may well defame innocent people.

    We need to know the truth.

  2. Outsider says:

    Oh well, I’m too cheap to bribe people, too chicken to knock them off and too chatty to keep any secret for long anyway. Besides, I can’t imagine how revealing that I’m a Jewish Muslim gay Communist Freemason member of Opus Dei could possibly hurt my reputation. Surely we as a society have matured enough not to care about such trifling matters, haven’t we?…

  3. Sylwia says:

    I’d be very happy if British and American media spared us the details of other people’s sex life, royal weddings included. I think it’s kind of sick to get all excited about things that happen between strangers, only because the strangers happen to be famous. Aren’t people bothered with their own voyeurism?

    I don’t like this idea of people being punished for the consequences of their own behaviour by the society. And the thought that the society should feel that it has a right to punish others’ actions is esp. disturbing. Sleeping around isn’t a crime. It’s a wrong way to build one’s relationship but it’s also no one else’s business.

    It’s the same kind of thinking that had good Christians throw gays to jail as recently as half a century ago. Sometimes people seem to want to remain Victorians for ever.

    Alas, society norms are a cultural phenomenon. Perhaps a century from now monogamy will be seen as social egotism? And the same kind of people will denounce others for being arrogant, conceited and above national interest. ;)

  4. Stix says:

    Ryan Giggs doesn’t mind living and working in England, but he does miss Wales every now and then.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s