Giggs - not so clean living

[avoidconfusion]

Sweet there is a sex tape of Imogen too

[LookMumImOnMCF.net]

Not heard about this a thousand times before, thanks.

[Beefymcfc]

Not heard about this a thousand times before, thanks.

Lucky Bastard.

There you go boys and Girls Imogen Thomas

[DoomMerchant]

There you go boys and Girls Imogen Thomas

Would it be understated to say she has a cute smile? Cuz she does. Just sayin.

[Kladze]

There you go boys and Girls Imogen Thomas

Would it be understated to say she has a cute smile? Cuz she does. Just sayin.

In England we call such a cute smile "big threepenny bits".

[Kladze]

Law is badly in need of reform as celebrities hide secrets

Roy Greenslade


There is a new guessing game for football fans as they wait for Premier League matches to kick off which goes along the lines of: "Is the rival team's striker really Footballer XYZ or could it be our own midfielder? Who's been playing away even when playing at home? Was the blonde stunner in Sunday's paper who talked about 'romps' with an England star referring to our happily married defender?"

I doubt if all that many supporters actually use the newly coined term "super-injunction" but it has become something of a media buzzword in recent months.

In fact, so wide is its use that it is often misapplied by editors who are outraged at the way judges appear to be issuing gagging orders at the drop of a wig. But we will come to that. First, we must grasp what it means in its purest and most accurate form.

The expression "super-injunction" originally meant a form of gagging order whereby the press was forbidden to report the injunction's very existence let alone any details contained in it. This meant, of course, that the name of the person or company seeking the injunction also remained secret.

Recently, however, papers have begun to describe injunctions as being of the "super" variety even though there is no prohibition against revealing their existence nor against reporting on the details.

What has been vetoed by the courts is revealing the identity of the person who has secured the injunction. Hence the emergence of alphabet spaghetti, such as YMP and XPS, to protect their identities from emerging in public.

Strictly speaking, these are not super-injunctions. But I don't think that is going to change matters. From now on, clearly, it is going to be used to describe any gagging order that has the effect of making the plaintiff anonymous.

Incidentally, it was Alan Rusbridger, editor of the Guardian, who came up with the term super-injunction in September 2009 when his paper was prohibited from reporting the contents of an internal report by the oil trader Trafigura into the 2006 Ivory Coast toxic waste dump scandal.

Its existence was only revealed when it was referred to in a parliamentary question, by the Labour MP Paul Farrelly, which was then circulated widely on the internet. Parliamentary privilege allows what MPs say in the chamber to be reported without restriction.

That route was also famously employed last month by the Liberal Democrat MP, John Hemming, to reveal that Sir Fred Goodwin, the former chief executive of the Royal Bank of Scotland, had taken out a super-injunction.

The order even prevented his being referred to as a banker - a fact that was widely lampooned. Even so, the nature of the information that Goodwin wished to protect has remained secret.

Hemming has now turned this single incident into something of a crusade by mounting a campaign to force an inquiry into the use of super-injunctions (which, as I say again, are not all genuine super-injunctions).

It comes against the background of three allegedly famous men securing gagging orders which prevent their identity being revealed. Oddly, though, we know what they are trying to hide.

Yesterday, the appeal court granted an injunction to a married man "in the entertainment business" who is supposed to have had an affair with a married woman, known as X, with whom he was working. The judges ruled that revealing the adultery "may satisfy public prurience but is not a sufficient justification for interfering in the privacy rights of those involved".

In the second case, a Premier League footballer is alleged to have cheated on his wife in a six-month fling with topless model and former Big Brother star, Imogen Thomas. In the third, a married actor is said to have had sexual relations with Helen Wood, a prostitute previously linked to Wayne Rooney.

Hemming is now trying to discover just how many super-injunctions have been used. This is a difficult task, given that many remain secret. The Guardian has estimated that as many as 20 have been granted in the past 18 months but the legal editor of The Times, Frances Gibb, thinks it might be nearer 30.

Perhaps the most famous example is the one granted to John Terry, the Chelsea and England footballer, over how he allegedly cheated on his wife with his team-mate's former girlfriend. We know about that because the order was lifted after it was successfully argued that Terry was seeking to protect his image rather than his privacy.

We also know about one granted to the golfer Colin Montgomerie because he was questioned about it by foreign journalists who were unaware of the order's existence. The details remain secret.

As is obvious from most of these cases - and others that we know a little about through rumour, mostly on the internet - the legal gags have been imposed on behalf of men to prevent papers reporting allegations of sexual infidelity.

This fact has interesting implications. Many - including, for different reasons, the mainly male editors of popular newspapers and a great number of female lawyers - believe this to be iniquitous. They argue that powerful men -usually wealthy celebrities - are "using" women, dumping them and then prohibiting them from exercising their freedom of expression. They are, one female lawyer told me indignantly, denying these women their rights. "It is an abuse of power by men," she said.

The mention of rights requires some explanation too. There appears to be some confusion over the reason for the rise of super-injunctions.

Some editors seem to believe their use is linked to the European Convention on Human Rights because of the way judges refer to protecting the privacy of plaintiffs. In fact they should be seen instead as a natural progression of English common law and they did not emerge suddenly in 2009. In the past, similar orders were granted to protect commercial secrets and have also been used to protect children.

But the danger is clear. We have a long tradition of open justice, and many lawyers are worried about the growth of secret procedures where legal decisions are made without public scrutiny. In fact, so great were the legal community's concerns that a committee of judges was set up, headed by Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger, to inquire into the use of super-injunctions.

We are led to believe that a report on their findings is imminent. But will it please lawyers or editors?

Roy Greenslade is Professor of Journalism, City University London and writes a blog for the Guardian

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/markets/a ... ets.do#top

[Arjan Van Schotte]

i think its time i gave her a gagging order.

[Mikhail Chigorin]

Does anyone know what the penalties are for breeching a 'super-injunction' ??

Surely the media are investigating means by which such an order could be bye-passed, as the first newsgroup to successfully do this would make a veritable killing, even in this case which ostensibly refers to 'Giggscum of the Salford Scum'.

Furthermore, with regard to this loathsome little cretinous red retard, as a vegetarian it still leaves me with a sour taste in the mouth that, some years ago on the TV, the Giggscum hypocrite used to advertise Quorn.

Just one more reason to hate all matters Scum.

[Kladze]

Surely the media are investigating means by which such an order could be bye-passed, as the first newsgroup to successfully do this would make a veritable killing, even in this case which ostensibly refers to 'Giggscum of the Salford Scum'.

Talk an mp into asking a parliamentary question which refers to it.

[ronk]

Greenslade is missing the point, people talk about super-injunctions because we're not allowed know if one exists and the people who know about it aren't allowed tell us.

Against that backdrop it's natural to assume that one is in place as opposed to a mere gagging order.

Occasionally loopholes come up, the Guardian found one with the Trafigura case that eventually allowed them to get a tiny fraction of the evidence into the public domain. They relied on the fuss over the censorship of a parliamentary question to bring Trafigura into the limelight naturally, but they used a loophole in the super-injunction, one that we're not allowed be told if it's been closed in any other super-injunctions.

[Mikhail Chigorin]

Hi Ronk,

Interesting point you make but, just as a further consideration, what would there be - apart from nothing - to prevent the Irish newspapers from printing the whole sorry saga (if they haven't done so already) ??

On that basis, any gagging orders/super injunctions, in this country (UK), would be completely meaningless, given the availability of information via the Internet.

Furthermore in that respect if, for example, the Sun/News of the World/Guardian or whatever found out that Joe Bloggs had been married to ten different women all at the same time, his name and the sordid story would be splashed all over the front pages for days on end. However, on the same basis, why should a footballer/celebrity/Government figure be allowed to close off all emerging stories about any misdemeanours committed, presumably just because they've got the money and can afford the lawyers to do it.

In such instances, what would happen if, say, the Sun decided to print all, in full defiance of the (supposed ?) law. Would the paper be fined ?? Would the editorial staff be imprisoned ?? In short, what would be the ultimate sanction which would render a newspaper breaking the law a non-event and not worth it, particularly as there was no national security aspect to be concerned about ??

[Chinners]

Surely the media are investigating means by which such an order could be bye-passed, as the first newsgroup to successfully do this would make a veritable killing, even in this case which ostensibly refers to 'Giggscum of the Salford Scum'.

Talk an mp into asking a parliamentary question which refers to it.

One day, one day ..... I'll get to be the one to ask that question ... maybe

[Kladze]

Surely the media are investigating means by which such an order could be bye-passed, as the first newsgroup to successfully do this would make a veritable killing, even in this case which ostensibly refers to 'Giggscum of the Salford Scum'.

Talk an mp into asking a parliamentary question which refers to it.

One day, one day ..... I'll get to be the one to ask that question ... maybe

With alternative voting, though still unlikely, you just never know ;-)

[DoomMerchant]

i think its time i gave her a gagging order.

i'm with you on this point from a legal perspective. in fact, tho it's not my normal style since i'm neither litigious nor tertiary, i would, in fact, issue my own gagging order once you have issued yours.

cheers

[ronk]

Hi Ronk,

Interesting point you make but, just as a further consideration, what would there be - apart from nothing - to prevent the Irish newspapers from printing the whole sorry saga (if they haven't done so already) ??

On that basis, any gagging orders/super injunctions, in this country (UK), would be completely meaningless, given the availability of information via the Internet.

Furthermore in that respect if, for example, the Sun/News of the World/Guardian or whatever found out that Joe Bloggs had been married to ten different women all at the same time, his name and the sordid story would be splashed all over the front pages for days on end. However, on the same basis, why should a footballer/celebrity/Government figure be allowed to close off all emerging stories about any misdemeanours committed, presumably just because they've got the money and can afford the lawyers to do it.

In such instances, what would happen if, say, the Sun decided to print all, in full defiance of the (supposed ?) law. Would the paper be fined ?? Would the editorial staff be imprisoned ?? In short, what would be the ultimate sanction which would render a newspaper breaking the law a non-event and not worth it, particularly as there was no national security aspect to be concerned about ??

The case for Irish newspapers would be different from other foreign media. We generally publish in the UK too, especially Northern Ireland so we'd either have to stop selling those editions or print a different edition. The Irish Times and Irish Independent is printed with a Sterling price on the front. Several of the bigger papers are subsidiaries, so papers like the Irish Sun wouldn't dare circumvent.

Super injunctions have been broken by more remote foreign media in some cases, sometimes inadvertently (as mentioned in the linked piece), but there are issues relating to how those sources find out if they don't have journalists operating here, and a foreign correspondant still has to obey the law, he/she can't just wire a story to the NY Times and the Guardian Service can't just send out a story marked "not legal for publication in Britain".

Some blogger in New Zealand or wikileaks could just report whatever they wanted, but how would they find those stories.

[Arjan Van Schotte]

i think its time i gave her a gagging order.

i'm with you on this point from a legal perspective. in fact, tho it's not my normal style since i'm neither litigious nor tertiary, i would, in fact, issue my own gagging order once you have issued yours.

cheers

there is actually some very good court footage of a previous gagging order she received a few years ago. very good footage. PM me if you can't find it.

[righthererightnow]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/2011/04/24/big- ... -23082555/
and she gets around...

Does Fergie have shares in a brothel?