"I haven't rehearsed what I am going to tell the jury." (JM)

[ngb1066]

Actually I think we are probably confusing each other!

What I'm saying is that if A has a super-injunction against B prohibiting B from doing X, B cannot do X and no one can report the fact that A has the injunction (or even the fact that A applied for it).

But C can do X because because C is not named in the injunction (provided that C is not assisted in doing X by virtue of B having violated the anonymity order).

So if you receive knowledge that A has an injunction against B prohibiting them from doing X, you can still do X (although that would probably be stupid) and you can report the existance of the injunction.

If on the other hand you receive information that A has a super-injunction preventing B from doing X, you can still do X (but see stupidity comment above) but you cannot report the fact that the super-injunction exists.

Remember that I was responding to your earlier comment which was:

I seem to recall a post a few months ago referring to a superinjunction obtained by one of the relatives.  It would be interesting to hear more about this.

Anyone still awake? 

Yes, I am still awake.  I agree with your summary.  Now we have to find out if there is an injunction!

[grahameb]

Actually I think we are probably confusing each other!

What I'm saying is that if A has a super-injunction against B prohibiting B from doing X, B cannot do X and no one can report the fact that A has the injunction (or even the fact that A applied for it).

But C can do X because because C is not named in the injunction (provided that C is not assisted in doing X by virtue of B having violated the anonymity order).

So if you receive knowledge that A has an injunction against B prohibiting them from doing X, you can still do X (although that would probably be stupid) and you can report the existance of the injunction.

If on the other hand you receive information that A has a super-injunction preventing B from doing X, you can still do X (but see stupidity comment above) but you cannot report the fact that the super-injunction exists.

Remember that I was responding to your earlier comment which was:

I seem to recall a post a few months ago referring to a superinjunction obtained by one of the relatives.  It would be interesting to hear more about this.

Anyone still awake? 

Yes, I am still awake.  I agree with your summary.  Now we have to find out if there is an injunction!

How would Ron Cook have found out?

[DCrump]

Actually I think we are probably confusing each other!

What I'm saying is that if A has a super-injunction against B prohibiting B from doing X, B cannot do X and no one can report the fact that A has the injunction (or even the fact that A applied for it).

But C can do X because because C is not named in the injunction (provided that C is not assisted in doing X by virtue of B having violated the anonymity order).

So if you receive knowledge that A has an injunction against B prohibiting them from doing X, you can still do X (although that would probably be stupid) and you can report the existance of the injunction.

If on the other hand you receive information that A has a super-injunction preventing B from doing X, you can still do X (but see stupidity comment above) but you cannot report the fact that the super-injunction exists.

Remember that I was responding to your earlier comment which was:

I seem to recall a post a few months ago referring to a superinjunction obtained by one of the relatives.  It would be interesting to hear more about this.

Anyone still awake? 

Yes, I am still awake.  I agree with your summary.  Now we have to find out if there is an injunction!

... and if once found it's 'super', keep our traps shut 

[Roch]

Actually I think we are probably confusing each other!

What I'm saying is that if A has a super-injunction against B prohibiting B from doing X, B cannot do X and no one can report the fact that A has the injunction (or even the fact that A applied for it).

But C can do X because because C is not named in the injunction (provided that C is not assisted in doing X by virtue of B having violated the anonymity order).

So if you receive knowledge that A has an injunction against B prohibiting them from doing X, you can still do X (although that would probably be stupid) and you can report the existance of the injunction.

If on the other hand you receive information that A has a super-injunction preventing B from doing X, you can still do X (but see stupidity comment above) but you cannot report the fact that the super-injunction exists.

Remember that I was responding to your earlier comment which was:

I seem to recall a post a few months ago referring to a superinjunction obtained by one of the relatives.  It would be interesting to hear more about this.

Anyone still awake? 

Yes, I am still awake.  I agree with your summary.  Now we have to find out if there is an injunction!

How would Ron Cook have found out?

He may have put two and two together and just surmised?  Or he may know something that we don't?

[grahameb]

Actually I think we are probably confusing each other!

What I'm saying is that if A has a super-injunction against B prohibiting B from doing X, B cannot do X and no one can report the fact that A has the injunction (or even the fact that A applied for it).

But C can do X because because C is not named in the injunction (provided that C is not assisted in doing X by virtue of B having violated the anonymity order).

So if you receive knowledge that A has an injunction against B prohibiting them from doing X, you can still do X (although that would probably be stupid) and you can report the existance of the injunction.

If on the other hand you receive information that A has a super-injunction preventing B from doing X, you can still do X (but see stupidity comment above) but you cannot report the fact that the super-injunction exists.

Remember that I was responding to your earlier comment which was:

I seem to recall a post a few months ago referring to a superinjunction obtained by one of the relatives.  It would be interesting to hear more about this.

Anyone still awake? 

Yes, I am still awake.  I agree with your summary.  Now we have to find out if there is an injunction!

... and if once found it's 'super', keep our traps shut 

Or.....leak it anonymously to a foreign paper.

[grahameb]

Actually I think we are probably confusing each other!

What I'm saying is that if A has a super-injunction against B prohibiting B from doing X, B cannot do X and no one can report the fact that A has the injunction (or even the fact that A applied for it).

But C can do X because because C is not named in the injunction (provided that C is not assisted in doing X by virtue of B having violated the anonymity order).

So if you receive knowledge that A has an injunction against B prohibiting them from doing X, you can still do X (although that would probably be stupid) and you can report the existance of the injunction.

If on the other hand you receive information that A has a super-injunction preventing B from doing X, you can still do X (but see stupidity comment above) but you cannot report the fact that the super-injunction exists.

Remember that I was responding to your earlier comment which was:

I seem to recall a post a few months ago referring to a superinjunction obtained by one of the relatives.  It would be interesting to hear more about this.

Anyone still awake? 

Yes, I am still awake.  I agree with your summary.  Now we have to find out if there is an injunction!

How would Ron Cook have found out?

He may have put two and two together and just surmised?  Or he may know something that we don't?

He must have known because he published a list?

[Roch]

It was in the daily paper.  An article.  I wonder if wiki-leaks knows anything about this case?

[grahameb]

It was in the daily paper.  An article.  I wonder if wiki-leaks knows anything about this case?

Do you reckon it would be an idea to contact them?

[Bambergate]

Hi
I just looked at the story and expected more coverage of the case
It just seems to add up
Mark

[jackiepreece]

What do you think Mike ?

[campion]

Since   the theme of the enigmatic, anonysed? superinjunction has become silent, may I return to the original topic.     According to Wilkes Ch. 15, STAN, the 'knife' was at home at No 1, Letsby Avenue, planning an evening  out with his good lady. He had a call from Witham P.S., informing him that LIZZZ    RIMMINGTON wished to speak to him. Not much appears tobe known about her. SHE HAD LIVED WITH    Matthew MacDonald, and used to socilalise with him and JB and Christine? She had put the bubble in to JM that she had had JB plus afew more squeaks. At the time of the call she was living with Malcolm Waters of SLOPPY JOES. Back at Ch. 15, Stan says to his wife, Ibet this is Julie coming forward. - LIZ,  STAN HERE HAVE YOU GOT JULIE WITH YOU ? YES' He immediately rushes up the A12 in his white trainers to Malcolm's HOUSE  IN cOLCHESTER. He meets them, and straightaway asks J ULIE - 'DID JEREMY DO IT'.  YES, she said, and STANsmiled a reassuring smile. iT GETS  BETTER  .......................

[campion]

How did Wilkes come by this ScINtillating, tittilating tittle-tattle? Paradoxically not from MISS MARPLES.    No, by elementary deduction, following Sherlock Holmes mentor -JB-, IT WAS STRAIGHT FROM the HORSES MOUTH. We can attribute it to STAN the MAN, no less the intrepid TROTTER Hercules from the corrupt AUGEAN STABLES.      hmm hmm  FOOW FOOW

[chochokeira]

How did Wilkes come by this ScINtillating, tittilating tittle-tattle? Paradoxically not from MISS MARPLES.    No, by elementary deduction, following Sherlock Holmes mentor -JB-, IT WAS STRAIGHT FROM the HORSES MOUTH. We can attribute it to STAN the MAN, no less the intrepid TROTTER Hercules from the corrupt AUGEAN STABLES.      hmm hmm  FOOW FOOW

Hi Campion, I'm greatly enjoying your cryptic postings. Just one problem: some parts are a little too cryptic for a tired mind to follow. Any chance of a translation?

[Buddy]

How did Wilkes come by this ScINtillating, tittilating tittle-tattle? Paradoxically not from MISS MARPLES.    No, by elementary deduction, following Sherlock Holmes mentor -JB-, IT WAS STRAIGHT FROM the HORSES MOUTH. We can attribute it to STAN the MAN, no less the intrepid TROTTER Hercules from the corrupt AUGEAN STABLES.      hmm hmm  FOOW FOOW

Hi Campion, I'm greatly enjoying your cryptic postings. Just one problem: some parts are a little too cryptic for a tired mind to follow. Any chance of a translation?

I was following completely Keira. You need to do the Times crossword.

[grahameb]

How did Wilkes come by this ScINtillating, tittilating tittle-tattle? Paradoxically not from MISS MARPLES.    No, by elementary deduction, following Sherlock Holmes mentor -JB-, IT WAS STRAIGHT FROM the HORSES MOUTH. We can attribute it to STAN the MAN, no less the intrepid TROTTER Hercules from the corrupt AUGEAN STABLES.      hmm hmm  FOOW FOOW

Hi Campion, I'm greatly enjoying your cryptic postings. Just one problem: some parts are a little too cryptic for a tired mind to follow. Any chance of a translation?

Well foow foow is not some Chinese person. He is referring to woof woof.