Premiership footballer sues twitter over super injunction

[carl_feedthegoat]

If I was tankin Imogen I'd be telling everybody, not trying to stop them from finding out

PMSL.....if my bird walked in on me shagging her I swear I wouldn't stop.

[Jdoe235]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13503847

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

You know what's funny though, had he just let it go he could've just said to his wife that it's some publicity hungry weirdo making these claims. Now he is royally screwed.

[Nigels Tackle]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13503847

brilliant. a lib dem mp with some balls...wow!

[guv111]

Model professional, blah blah blah
Great role model, blah blah blah

Fucking hypocrite.

[bigblue]

Hes obviously never heard of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

But I'm sure the law firm he hired is laughing all the way to the bank

[ronk]

I'm a little disappointed that Balotelli hasn't been blamed yet.

[Nutzer]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13503847

It's also the top story on BBCs teletext National & Local news and Football headlines. I can't believe the High Court still think any form of injunction is any use. I also can't believe any girl other than his missus would want to bed him.
But it made me sick on MotD to see pics of him parading round the stadium holding his kids. F@*&ing hypocrite!!!

[john68]

@ Nutzer,
It doesn't matter whether a court thinks that an injunction is any use. The courts are merely responding to a request to issue a n injunction and are applying the law, within that courts jurisdiction.
What happens outside the jurisdiction of the court has nothing to do with them.

[Avalon]

i don't the point of twitter... that said, being a big live music fan, I have managed to get some good info about gigs on there...

oh snap!

[ronk]

@ Nutzer,
It doesn't matter whether a court thinks that an injunction is any use. The courts are merely responding to a request to issue a n injunction and are applying the law, within that courts jurisdiction.
What happens outside the jurisdiction of the court has nothing to do with them.

But are they applying the law or are they overreaching their powers? This is a very liberal interpretation of privacy laws and one that isn't consistent with other interpretations. There's very little effort to protect the private information of people and there have been major abuses of laws including terrorism laws to invade privacy.

There are legal remedies available for slander, libel and harassment; on what basis should the threat of long long custodial sentences be necessary to protect the false good name of someone. Should Imogen Thomas be at risk of going to jail for years for telling anyone about her own private life (subject to her confessing to breaking the law)?

[Chinners]

The main problem Imogen Thomas has is that she usually uses the Sun/NOTW to tell anyone about her private life ...

[Wooders]

Giggs recently gave us a cheeky spoiler in an interview:-

“Depsite living in Manchester for 22 years I still do Miss Wales now and again”

[Fullartj]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

[Rusholme Ruffian]

Ferguson moves to ban reporter from Friday's press conference for asking a question about Giggs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/13521267.stm

[ronk]

The main problem Imogen Thomas has is that she usually uses the Sun/NOTW to tell anyone about her private life ...

And he can sue the Sun or News of the World. Or her.

Trying to reign in free speech, even in other countries, is a bit excessive to protect the privacy of an entertainer. It's not like his marketability is even that damaged, if anything he could have been more popular.

What law says that he should be able to cheat and betray his wife and threaten people with jail and seizure of everything they own if they don't collude in concealing his infidelities. I'm not supportive of the invasion of his privacy, such as it is, but I'm completely against the methods employed.

Do people have a state sponsored inalienable right to force other people (under penalty of imprisonment) to conceal information from their spouses? No court should even consider one of these injunctions, at the very least Giggs should have had to swear an affidavit that the story was untrue so that his application would be done with the risk of perjuring himself. That way there's a facility for the law to protect the innocent, rather than the guilty.

[Rusholme Ruffian]

Shit! http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Ryan-Giggs-Paparazzi-Attacked-By-Van-Of-Masked-Men-Outside-Manchester-United-Players-Home/Article/201105415998803?lpos=Home_First_Home_Article_Teaser_Region_1&lid=ARTICLE_15998803_Ryan_Giggs%3A_Paparazzi_Attacked_By_Van_Of_Masked_Men_Outside_Manchester_United_Players_Home

[Florida Blue]

Shit! http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Ryan-Giggs-Paparazzi-Attacked-By-Van-Of-Masked-Men-Outside-Manchester-United-Players-Home/Article/201105415998803?lpos=Home_First_Home_Article_Teaser_Region_1&lid=ARTICLE_15998803_Ryan_Giggs%3A_Paparazzi_Attacked_By_Van_Of_Masked_Men_Outside_Manchester_United_Players_Home

Yes, they are truly loyal supporters and good upstanding civilians. I think one of them was identified as an impish ginger and another as a tall, troll-like-horsefaced with corn rows.

[Mase]

Shit! http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Ryan-Giggs-Paparazzi-Attacked-By-Van-Of-Masked-Men-Outside-Manchester-United-Players-Home/Article/201105415998803?lpos=Home_First_Home_Article_Teaser_Region_1&lid=ARTICLE_15998803_Ryan_Giggs%3A_Paparazzi_Attacked_By_Van_Of_Masked_Men_Outside_Manchester_United_Players_Home

Apparently a large amount of sheep could be heard BAAAAHring from the van.

[john68]

Ronk,
Sorry mate but I when I used the term "applying the law", it was only in response to Nutzer's question, regarding whether the court's ruling was useless. I was only pointing out that courts can only rule on the law as it stands. It doesn't have an opinion on whether it is a good or useful law. That is the remit of the government.

In the terms you are using that statement, you are right and I agree with the other points you raise.

On the issue of the attack on the media by thugs, I assume (though I shouldn't) that this was carried out by rags' fans as some type of warning to lay off. When added to the threatening incident outside the gates of Rooney's house not that long ago, there does seem to be something very sinister that has attached itself to the rags. Something very gangerous and sinister indeed.
Surely the rags can't let this go without acting?