The only reason it matters is because there is allegedly a super injunction against anything being reported. Why would someone feel the need to hide something that is not unlawful.
The only reason it matters is because there is allegedly a super injunction against anything being reported. Why would someone feel the need to hide something that is not unlawful.
That's just unionists hoping she's a lesbian so they have more "top bantz" to throw at her.
If there was a super injunction then you'd know about it. You might not know what it was about but you'd definitely know about it.
That's just unionists hoping she's a lesbian so they have more "top bantz" to throw at her.
If there was a super injunction then you'd know about it. You might not know what it was about but you'd definitely know about it.
The difference between an injunction and a superinjunction is that the media can report that an injunction exists, but not that a superinjunction exists. So you wouldn't know about it if it exists. Which we don't know.
The difference between an injunction and a superinjunction is that the media can report that an injunction exists, but not that a superinjunction exists. So you wouldn't know about it if it exists. Which we don't know.
Injunctions and superinjunctions aren't anything to do with Scots Law.
However, by your logic then we'd never know so how do you know?