Do you agree with privacy injunctions?

[Z]

Do you think it's fair to protect the privacy of people for the sake of something deemed immoral that they have done? This ranges from protecting the privacy of James Bulger's murderers to recent examples of celebrity infidelity - bearing those sorts of extremes in mind, what do you think?

On the one hand, it could be seen as protecting those who some would say do not deserve to be protected, on the other hand, it could be argued that their lives have already been ruined in some way and that there's no need to stick another nail in the coffin.

[CharlieO]

i think if someone has done something wrong why shouldn't they be punished. if you don't give someone privacy then thats not a punishment its what the people who find out choose to do with it. depends on the situation. for example i dont think premiership footballers identity should be covered up because they made the mistake of cheating on their wife. but if someone was mentally ill and did a crime by mistake and it would cause them great pain to have people know about it though not intentional i think that person should be granted privacy.

[Omah]

No - they are being used to protect the image and the income of the already filthy rich ..... :mad:

[Novo]

I don't get how they work, what happens if in the latest case ( The Imogen one ) if she said who it was in an interview or something.. would she be fined?

[Vicky.]

I dont agree with them at all. Boohoo, poor little paedo gets punched in the street because people know what he is. Much better than people not knowing and him striking again.

[joeysteele]

Overall I don't agree with them. If wrong has been done then I think it ought to be revealed but NOT just when its speculation, once admitted or proven something wrong has been done, only then should it be fully made public knowledge.

[Smithy]

No I don't agree with them, whatever happened to freedom of speech :bored:

[Z]

They're not even 100% effective in achieving what they set out to do, the press find other ways to reveal telling information that allows the public to make pretty good estimations of who's obtained the injunction (in the case of celebrities) and because of that, people who have nothing to do with the issue are dragged through the mud because people speculate and the truth never comes out officially.

[Tom4784]

I believe people have a right to privacy, just because someone is well known doesn't mean they don't deserve the same rights as a normal person.

[arista]

I don't get how they work, what happens if in the latest case ( The Imogen one ) if she said who it was in an interview or something.. would she be fined?

The Slick Lawyers used Euro Laws

[arista]

I believe people have a right to privacy, just because someone is well known doesn't mean they don't deserve the same rights as a normal person.


but the Dirty Rich Married Cads name is on the internet
so some of us know

[arista]

No I don't agree with them, whatever happened to freedom of speech :bored:




Yes.


Poxy Euro Laws stopped it.

[Benjamin]

Sometimes yes. When it comes to people like sports stars for example then yes. They never chose to be famous, they just happened to be good at a sport, so why should their private lives be splashed around all over the place especially when half of it is lies.


When it comes to crime, then no. You choose to commit that crime, you reap the consequences of it.

[Smithy]

Sometimes yes. When it comes to people like sports stars for example then yes. They never chose to be famous, they just happened to be good at a sport, so why should their private lives be splashed around all over the place especially when half of it is lies.


When it comes to crime, then no. You choose to commit that crime, you reap the consequences of it.

Surely if it's sports stars it is true otherwise they wouldn't have taken out the injunction.

[Benjamin]

Surely if it's sports stars it is true otherwise they wouldn't have taken out the injunction.

Even so, they have every right to have their private lives kept private.

[Omah]

Even so, they have every right to have their private lives kept private.

Not if their private life is at variance with their public image which they are using to generate massive amounts of income from sponsors and punters ..... :nono:

[Tom4784]

Not if their private life is at variance with their public image which they are using to generate massive amounts of income from sponsors and punters ..... :nono:

Everyone has a right to a private life, just because you're envious of their income doesn't mean they are less deserving of it.

[Benjamin]

Not if their private life is at variance with their public image which they are using to generate massive amounts of income from sponsors and punters ..... :nono:

If they are being sponsored for example by Lucozade for atheletic purposes, then what has them cheating on thier wife got to do with that? Absolutely nothing. People act like these people are commiting murder (if that was the case then fair dos) but many people in society cheat on their partners. Not condoning it, but everyone acts as if they are so perfect and that celebrities, famous people, rich people should know better. They are still prone to human flaws like the rest of us.

People are just too nosey and get off on people's misery and mistakes.

[Iceman]

The Slick Lawyers used Euro Laws

That doesnt answer the question, just another way for you to slag the euro off, dont keep doing this.

[cub]

In the Internet age there are no secrets. The best they can hope for is their names won't be emblazoned on the Red Tops. But we all know the celebs involved already.

[Omah]

Everyone has a right to a private life, just because you're envious of their income doesn't mean they are less deserving of it.

The point is that, whoever you are, if you are married with children and involved in say, dubious sexual practices with a third party, newspapers are free to print the details, unless you shell out £50k in the High Court for an injunction to stop them, so only the wealthy are protected by these "unofficial" privacy laws, while ordinary people have no such protection - "ordinary" could, of course, include people with local social or civic status, such as athletes, teachers or councillors .....

So, if you're Mr Clean and Wholesome and being used by Coca-Cola International to sell Coke to kids, the company will drop you like stone if it is publicly disclosed that you're sh*****g underage *****s before appearances with their name on your shirt (or worse, while you're wearing their name on your shirt ) - several million pounds a year suddenly disappears from your bank accounts, to be followed by ever more losses as other sponsors pull out ..... unless you pay members of the legal and judicial system to prevent the public disclosure of your sordid "private" life .....

[patsylimerick]

I suppose there has to be some mechanism to stop cheap little trollops (male or female) spouting nonsense for a few bob, but the privacy injunction is a very different thing to the non-publication of sex offenders' details. The principal purpose of non-disclosure in many sex offence cases is to protect the victim. There's also the risk of mob rule. However, you end up with a situation where random guy 'A' is in court for drink driving and has his name published in the paper. His neighbour, random guy 'B', rapes his niece and cannot be identified. In our current system, any criminal case of any kind involving a child imposes an automatic ban on the publication of the names of anyone involved. It takes away the element of punishment that is the shame. Totally different issue, however, to privacy injunctions, which I can understand the appetite for. If these men's wives are stupid and undignified enough to put up with this kind of shoite, hey ho.

[BB_Eye]

If there is one thing in this world I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy, it's an angry mob.

[Sam:)]

No,if your famous you need to accept that you are ALWAYS in the public eye.ANd if you do something bad e.g. an affair with a gold-digging bimbo who wants to sell the story she has the right to sell it as much as you have to get an injunction.

[Zippy]

No - they are being used to protect the image and the income of the already filthy rich ..... :mad:

Rubbish.

There are often other people inadvertently involved like wives and children who are totally innocent and suffering enough already. Why should their names be dragged through the media?

Each case is different but there's certainly a need for such injunctions sometimes.

[Omah]

There are often other people inadvertently involved like wives and children who are totally innocent and suffering enough already. Why should their names be dragged through the media?

They already are, except for the filthy rich - local and national rags and mags cover "marital infidelity" with alacrity and enthusiasm ..... :wink:

Husband froze to death as he cheated on wife (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/04/20/husband-froze-to-death-as-he-cheated-on-wife-115875-23073539/#ixzz1KCifsGza)

Syed Hussain, 29, had parked in a garage with Shabana Akhtar as temperatures plunged to -10C (14F) during the freezing weather last December – but died after the lovers of three years fell asleep.

Top Gear's Jeremy Clarkson’s ‘test drive fun’ with leggy mistress (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/04/05/top-gear-s-jeremy-clarkson-s-test-drive-fun-with-leggy-mistress-115875-23038531/)

BRAZEN Jeremy Clarkson took his “leggy” mistress for a spin in a Maserati – then bragged about it in a newspaper column.

Clarkson, 50 – caught cheating on loyal wife Frances with TV colleague Phillipa Sage, 42 – invited the blonde on a test drive more than a year ago during the New Zealand leg of the Top Gear Live tour. The thrilled TV presenter and his companion were chauffeured around in the £80,000 sports car by a driver called Nigel.

[Real]

They already are, except for the filthy rich - local and national rags and amags cover "marital infidelity" with alacrity and enthusiasm ..... :wink:

If they have anything to hide then they shoudnt do it in the first place. :xyxwave:

[Real]

Lets take an example- Imogen from BB- A Prem footballer with wife and family has been there and now requested anonimity through the high courts to keep him safe? WTF? He knows the rules- keep it at home. How would any normal person be able to keep their identity out of the news?Load of bollocks IMO. One rule for the Rich and another for the poor. He knew what he was he was doing and should be made to face the consequencies. Am surprised it hasnt been leaked on foreign websites .

[Zippy]

Lets take an example- Imogen from BB- A Prem footballer with wife and family has been there and now requested anonimity through the high courts to keep him safe? WTF? He knows the rules- keep it at home. How would any normal person be able to keep their identity out of the news?Load of bollocks IMO. One rule for the Rich and another for the poor. He knew what he was he was doing and should be made to face the consequencies. Am surprised it hasnt been leaked on foreign websites .

but if it were your average Joe it wouldnt be all over the media anyways so thats rather a moot point.

and its been leaked everywhere btw. Keep up, love.

[Omah]

Lets take an example- Imogen from BB- A Prem footballer with wife and family has been there and now requested anonimity through the high courts to keep him safe? WTF? He knows the rules- keep it at home. How would any normal person be able to keep their identity out of the news?Load of bollocks IMO. One rule for the Rich and another for the poor. He knew what he was he was doing and should be made to face the consequencies.

Yeah, I absolutely agree .... ;)

[GypsyGoth]

So Joe Cole had an affair with Ewan McGregor!!! :shocked:

[Omah]

but if it were your average Joe it wouldnt be all over the media anyways so thats rather a moot point.

Oh no ?

:rolleyes: .....

Teacher ‘groomed pupil for sex’ (http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/local/teacher_groomed_pupil_for_sex_1_3207020)

A PUPIL has told a court how a Blackpool teacher plied her with booze while grooming her for sex when she was just 14.

Preston Crown Court heard how the teenager turned to Caroline French as she began to have problems in her home life and became confused over her sexuality.

A jury heard how lifts home from school quickly progressed into a “full on kiss” and a sexual relationship between the pair.

But the 38-year-old, who was a drama teacher at a Blackpool high school at the time, denies the allegations, claiming she is not gay and her former pupil is lying.

[Zippy]

Oh no ?

:rolleyes: .....

Teacher ‘groomed pupil for sex’ (http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/local/teacher_groomed_pupil_for_sex_1_3207020)

:nono: thats about a sensational under age scandal which breaks the law and moral taboos. Hardly the same as somebody cheating on their wife.

[MTVN]

Definitely, privacy is a fundamental right for everyone, how is someone's sexual life any business of the general public. There are certain things the public have a right to know, the actions of their government for example, but the private life of an individual is not one of them

[Omah]

:nono: thats about a sensational under age scandal which breaks the law and moral taboos. Hardly the same as somebody cheating on their wife.

Botox doctor's sexual liaison with dominatrix in his surgery (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1376180/Botox-doctor-Tony-Walkers-sexual-liaison-dominatrix-surgery-arrived-looking-like-prostitute.html#ixzz1KCor8zDV)

A cosmetic surgeon performed a sex act on a dominatrix after she turned up for Botox treatment dressed ‘like a prostitute’.

Dr Tony Walker, 53, said he felt Marion Burton had been offering a ‘sexual invitation’ when she arrived in a ‘tartish’ low-cut top, stockings and high heels. She secretly filmed their liaison using a camera hidden in her handbag before using the footage to try to blackmail him for £20,000 – which led to her husband Terry being jailed for three-and-a- half years. But now Dr Walker faces being struck off by the General Medical Council.

Mrs Burton, 51, became a dominatrix known as Mistress J after losing her job as a mortgage broker, and was earning £5,000 a month.

Yesterday Dr Walker, a father of two, told a GMC hearing that ‘sexual contact’ twice took place between them at his clinic.

He said the first time was in August 2008, when she performed a sex act on him while he was standing with a Botox needle in one hand and a swab in the other.

Tory MP James Gray secretly marries mistress he romanced while wife battled breast cancer (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/08/11/not-so-true-blue-weds-115875-21588580/)

A Tory MP has secretly married the woman he cheated with while his wife was battling breast cancer.

After tying the knot with Philippa Mayo in a register office on Saturday, James Gray smiled: "She's taking on a handful, it must be quite a tough job to be married to me."

The North Wiltshire MP, 54, shocked party officials and supporters when details of his affair with mum-of-three Mrs Mayo, 46, came out in 2006.

His wife of 26 years Sarah was having chemotherapy at the time.

[Tom4784]

The point is that, whoever you are, if you are married with children and involved in say, dubious sexual practices with a third party, newspapers are free to print the details, unless you shell out £50k in the High Court for an injunction to stop them, so only the wealthy are protected by these "unofficial" privacy laws, while ordinary people have no such protection - "ordinary" could, of course, include people with local social or civic status, such as athletes, teachers or councillors .....

So, if you're Mr Clean and Wholesome and being used by Coca-Cola International to sell Coke to kids, the company will drop you like stone if it is publicly disclosed that you're sh*****g underage *****s before appearances with their name on your shirt (or worse, while you're wearing their name on your shirt ) - several million pounds a year suddenly disappears from your bank accounts, to be followed by ever more losses as other sponsors pull out ..... unless you pay members of the legal and judicial system to prevent the public disclosure of your sordid "private" life .....

It's only the celebrities who'll have their dirty laundry aired in national magazines though, I doubt The Sun would publish a story about Sandra down the road having it off with the postman. Your Average Joe doesn't need media injunctions from the High Courts. I just think that Fame shouldn't mean that you have to have your whole life played out in front of the cameras especially when a lot of people would rather be anonymous. Not everyone wants to be Katie Price.

At the end of the day Actors, Sportsmen, Musicians ETC are just jobs, I don't think that the public are entitled to knowing the inner workings of these people's lives, It doesn't matter how much money they earn they still should have the same rights as anybody else.

One thing I'm aware of is marketing and advertising, there's no need to explain anything to me about sponsorships and the like. Your point about Sponsorships doesn't mean anything, just because someone promotes a product doesn't mean that they sign away their rights to a private life.

[King Gizzard]

No. Said celebritie's atheletes shouldn't be doing what they're doing in the first place.

[Omah]

I doubt The Sun would publish a story about Sandra down the road having it off with the postman.

But the Yorkshire Post might :

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/around-yorkshire/local-stories/horny_goat_wife_in_leeds_postman_love_triangle_gui lty_of_attempted_murder_1_2307402

'Horny goat' wife in Leeds postman love triangle guilty of attempted murder

Joanne Hale was having an affair with a married man she met on the internet before plying her husband Peter with a sex drug and taking him to woodland in Stoke Park, Bristol.

Hale, 39, sobbed as she was found guilty of attempted murder by majority verdict at Bristol Crown Court.

Hale had struck up a relationship over the internet with married postal worker Philip Sudol who had travelled from Leeds to Bristol for a romantic liaison.

[MTVN]

Firsty that's only a local paper and secondly the report is primarily on the fact that, you know, she tried to kill her husband

[Omah]

Firsty that's only a local paper and secondly the report is primarily on the fact that, you know, she tried to kill her husband

Nevertheless, I've proved my point - the news is (rightly) out there, unless you pay the judiciary to have it suppressed without recourse to the law of the land as approved by Parliament..... :wink:

[Zippy]

Nevertheless, I've proved my point - the news is (rightly) out there, unless you pay the judiciary to have it suppressed without recourse to the law of the land as approved by Parliament..... :wink:

Money always has and always will talk. Its the reality of life.

but if youre that famous then the story will come out regardless. Just like it is doing with the Imogen saga. Personally Im grateful to be spared the graphic details.

[Omah]

Money always has and always will talk. Its the reality of life.


My point proved again - one law for the rich, another for the poor ..... :sad:

So, the innocent wives and children of the the poor but "wayward" husband have always suffered, and always will, and the innocent wives and children of the the rich but "wayward" husband will have always had their lifestyles maintained, and always will ..... :rolleyes:

Say la vee, nest pass ..... :shrug:

[Tom4784]

Crime reports and gossip reports are completely incomparable and different. All the stories you've linked to have been primarily about crime or malpractice in the workplace. You've been unable to provide an example of an average person being reported in a paper for simply cheating which would be a comparable example but normal people aren't at risk of that since the media only care about celebrities so they will report every little thing that happens to them so I don't blame them for seeking injunctions because I wouldn't want all my mistakes revealed to the world simply because of who I am.

[Livia]

Everyone has a right to a private life, just because you're envious of their income doesn't mean they are less deserving of it.

Actually, I don't think it has anything to do with being envious... I do hate that "you're just jealous" mentality. It has to do with the fact that these people SELL their lives to the media, they make shed-loads of money out of it, they become role models to young people and then they think they can flout all the rules and remain anonymous. I expect Ryan Giggs thought that when he shagged Imogen... but is there anyone alive that doesn't know it was him? People are notoriously bad at keeping juicy secrets.

Don't use the press to enhance your image, further your career and add to your bank balance, and then bleat on about privacy when they catch you with your trousers down.

[Shaun]

Yes. Mostly because it's not any of my business.

With regard to notorious killers (Ian Huntley, Maxine Carr) I genuinely don't understand the media furore about them. Yes, what they did was unforgivable. But what exactly is going around media sites, spouting endless streams of "THYE SHOULD BE HUNG DRAWN AND QUARTERED" and other such medieval pourings of hatred - what does this achieve? It's just sensationalism at its very worst.

[Tom4784]

Actually, I don't think it has anything to do with being envious... I do hate that "you're just jealous" mentality. It has to do with the fact that these people SELL their lives to the media, they make shed-loads of money out of it, they become role models to young people and then they think they can flout all the rules and remain anonymous. I expect Ryan Giggs thought that when he shagged Imogen... but is there anyone alive that doesn't know it was him? People are notoriously bad at keeping juicy secrets.

Don't use the press to enhance your image, further your career and add to your bank balance, and then bleat on about privacy when they catch you with your trousers down.

I think it does have to do with money considering his posts about the rich later on but I guess you haven't read that far yet.

You're tarring everyone with the same brush and it's a bit stupid to do so, Not all celebrities use the media in how they describe it. Not all of them choose to be at the mercy of the paparazzi so why deny them the right to a private life just because they earn more money then the rest of us, they're still human and they are still prone to mistakes. We don't get our dirty secrets revealed on a national scale if we make it a mistake so why is it okay for their privacy to go out the window just because of their income?

The whole 'Role Model' thing is just a poor excuse for bad parents to pass the buck with. Like any well raised and adjusted child would see Tiger Woods and think 'One day I'll cheat like that because anything Tiger Woods does is worth emulating!'

Like I said before though, not everyone is Katie Price,

[Marsh.]

Wish someone would slap an injuntion on Katie Price's life and all the other idiots who's "profession" seems to be getting filmed doing bugger all yet rolling in money.

Whether she wants it or not ban the media from bothering with her. Disgusting creature.

[zotler.]

What if someone is sorry for their crime? Does that not matter? Of course, you can't assume everyone is but those that are - will they be able to start over after their punishment if people are punching them as they walk down the street?

[Marsh.]

But the Yorkshire Post might :

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/around-yorkshire/local-stories/horny_goat_wife_in_leeds_postman_love_triangle_gui lty_of_attempted_murder_1_2307402

'Horny goat' wife in Leeds postman love triangle guilty of attempted murder

That's different. She tried to KILL him.

[Omah]

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/04/20/is-this-the-most-absurd-super-injunction-ever/

The order involves a mother – referred to as ‘M’ – who is seeking court permission to let her brain-damaged daughter die.

The super-injunction covers media coverage of the ongoing case. The court order bans journalists communicating with M or any other member of her family: “whether orally in person, or by telephoning, text message, email or other means”.

The Court of Protection specifically bans all journalists from contacting 65 people or coming within 50m of four properties.

Flouting that ban risks being found guilty of contempt of court, which could mean a fine or prison.

But guess what? We don’t know who those people are or what properties the court refers to.

:laugh2:

[Livia]

I think it does have to do with money considering his posts about the rich later on but I guess you haven't read that far yet.

You're tarring everyone with the same brush and it's a bit stupid to do so...


What's stupid is for high court judges to impose a law that has not passed through Parliament. That's what's stupid. If they are allowed to do this, what will they do next? There is a protocol that is not being followed.

We differ here... you think people should be allowed to do whatever they like and have their tracks covered by a judge who's making it up as he goes along for the benefit of the rich and shameless. I disagree.

[patsylimerick]

What if someone is sorry for their crime? Does that not matter? Of course, you can't assume everyone is but those that are - will they be able to start over after their punishment if people are punching them as they walk down the street?

If I stand back from it, I agree completely with you. But as someone with very young children, I find it very difficult to stand back and allow liberalism to free up and protect nasty predators. I think there's a very small number of these individuals who are without hope of rehabilitation. If we could assess and assign them in a better way, rather than heaping them all into the same soup bowl and expecting some miracle cure to have invaded their conscience just in time for the end of their prison sentence, we'd have some hope. There are some that should be allowed a second chance - and some that shouldn't. Naming them in the press and handing the control over to the mob is never the answer.

[Zippy]

Actually, I don't think it has anything to do with being envious... I do hate that "you're just jealous" mentality. It has to do with the fact that these people SELL their lives to the media, they make shed-loads of money out of it, they become role models to young people and then they think they can flout all the rules and remain anonymous. I expect Ryan Giggs thought that when he shagged Imogen... but is there anyone alive that doesn't know it was him? People are notoriously bad at keeping juicy secrets.


well footballers and sportstars become famous as a result of being good at what they do. So its not like they've sought fame as such. And they don't ask to be role models.

If it is Ryan Giggs then he's an absolute moron for even going near a known tabloid tramp. But the protection could actually be more for his wife and family. His wife and the world already know if its him so its not getting him off the hook. Just sparing us a load of sordid details with names attached.

[Omah]

What's stupid is for high court judges to impose a law that has not passed through Parliament. That's what's stupid. If they are allowed to do this, what will they do next? There is a protocol that is not being followed.

We differ here... you think people should be allowed to do whatever they like and have their tracks covered by a judge who's making it up as he goes along for the benefit of the rich and shameless. I disagree.

Hear, hear ..... :thumbs2:

[Vicky.]

If I stand back from it, I agree completely with you. But as someone with very young children, I find it very difficult to stand back and allow liberalism to free up and protect nasty predators. I think there's a very small number of these individuals who are without hope of rehabilitation. If we could assess and assign them in a better way, rather than heaping them all into the same soup bowl and expecting some miracle cure to have invaded their conscience just in time for the end of their prison sentence, we'd have some hope. There are some that should be allowed a second chance - and some that shouldn't. Naming them in the press and handing the control over to the mob is never the answer.

Rather that than have them remain anon and have them preying on my kids when I have them. I have no sympathy for pedophiles at all I'm afraid. In any situation.

(Is aware that this threads not just about this but thats the main thing that pisses me off about these 'privacy' things.)

[patsylimerick]

We should have sufficient controls within the systems that exist to keep the psycopathic away from the rest of us, once they're identified. In the absence of those controls, and if the only other options are put people in danger or set the Sun's mob on them then, yeah, let the mob have them. The point I was making was that we should strive for a situation where tabloids don't become our moral arbiters. It's a bit sick.

[JackLewisScott]

i think if someone has done something wrong why shouldn't they be punished. if you don't give someone privacy then thats not a punishment its what the people who find out choose to do with it. depends on the situation. for example i dont think premiership footballers identity should be covered up because they made the mistake of cheating on their wife. but if someone was mentally ill and did a crime by mistake and it would cause them great pain to have people know about it though not intentional i think that person should be granted privacy.


I totally agree with this post :)

If I had a partner and I had an affair, would it be protected if I didnt want anyone to find out? NO!! so why should footballers......

[Tom4784]

I totally agree with this post :)

If I had a partner and I had an affair, would it be protected if I didnt want anyone to find out? NO!! so why should footballers......

Nobody would care about your affair on a national level though, everyone's entitled to a private life regardless of their status or income.

If somebody has the money to throw around to do it then why not? It's not like who's shagging who is vital information we all need to know. It's gossip and there's nothing beneficial in knowing about it. Let him and his family deal with it in private as it's no one else's business at the end of the day.

[Omah]

Nobody would care about your affair on a national level though, everyone's entitled to a private life regardless of their status or income.

If somebody has the money to throw around to do it then why not? It's not like who's shagging who is vital information we all need to know. It's gossip and there's nothing beneficial in knowing about it. Let him and his family deal with it in private as it's no one else's business at the end of the day.

Yes it is ..... if he's portraying himself as Mr Clean and Wholesome to earn millions of pounds from family-oriented sponsors but he's really Mr Down and Dirty, then the sponsors need to know before their products are tainted by association, and buyers of both his image and his endorsed products need to know that he's a cheat and a liar, using their money to fund his extra-marital womanising and his legal cover-up ..... they may decide that it doesn't matter ..... apparently the Duke of Wellington got away with it, but Profumo didn't ..... ;)

[Shaun]

oh Omah please, you're only against privacy injunctions because if they were in place across the board, you'd have nothing to post about

[Tom4784]

Yes it is ..... if he's portraying himself as Mr Clean and Wholesome to earn millions of pounds from family-oriented sponsors but he's really Mr Down and Dirty, then the sponsors need to know before their products are tainted by association, and buyers of both his image and his endorsed products need to know that he's a cheat and a liar, using their money to fund his extra-marital womanising and his legal cover-up ..... they may decide that it doesn't matter ..... apparently the Duke of Wellington got away with it, but Profumo didn't ..... ;)

You've said this before, I shot it down. Not every celebrity relies on endorsements and the media, not everyone is Katie Price, why tar them all with the same brush? Why should celebrities be denied a private life just so that a bunch of nosey bitches can have something to gossip about for 5 minutes?

[Omah]

oh Omah please, you're only against privacy injunctions because if they were in place across the board, you'd have nothing to post about

No, I'm against them because they are not the law of the land but "laws" bought for cash which threaten freedom of speech and the search for truth, not just in "Celebrityworld" but in the worlds of politics, finance and commerce :

http://thelinc.co.uk/2010/03/the-super-injunction/

The recent action against the Guardian to stifle stories about an oil company went to extraordinary lengths which went well beyond any idea of protecting the applicant’s privacy and equitable interests.

The lawyers for the claimant (the oil company) were not only seeking to prevent adverse commentaries on the company’s activities but sought to injunct any kind of debate about including apparently debate in parliament.

:shocked:

[Omah]

You've said this before, I shot it down.

No, you didn't ..... :nono:

[/QUOTE]Not every celebrity relies on endorsements and the media[/QUOTE]

Yes, they do ..... :wink:

Why should celebrities be denied a private life just so that a bunch of nosey bitches can have something to gossip about for 5 minutes?

Why should celebrities decide what they want to be private and what they want to be public - if they've got something to hide, then those who fund their lifestyle should know about it ..... :evilgrin:

[Tom4784]

No, you didn't ..... :nono:

Not every celebrity relies on endorsements and the media

Yes, they do ..... :wink:



Why should celebrities decide what they want to be private and what they want to be public - if they've got something to hide, then those who fund their lifestyle should know about it ..... :evilgrin:

Let's apply that to everyone shall we? We should live our whole lives, every aspect of it, to how our work bosses say we should. We should all have no privacy and everything we do can and will affect our work even though any incidents may not be related. It wouldn't work so why should we apply that very flawed logic to celebrities simply because of who they are? Everyone's got a right to privacy and it enrages me how easily some people would want to explain those rights away.

[Omah]

Let's apply that to everyone shall we? We should live our whole lives, every aspect of it, to how our work bosses say we should. We should all have no privacy and everything we do can and will affect our work even though any incidents may not be related. It wouldn't work so why should we apply that very flawed logic to celebrities simply because of who they are? Everyone's got a right to privacy and it enrages me how easily some people would want to explain those rights away.

So paedophiles can work in schools ..... :eek:

[CharlieO]

it comes with the job they just need to deal with it. you say sports people dont do it for fame, true but nowadays there is a chance, they should weigh up the pros and cons of the career before doing it.

celebrities and sports people should have the same rights to privacy, which are what they do should have consequences. if they dont like it they dont have to do the job.

[Tom4784]

So paedophiles can work in schools ..... :eek:

ROFL at you.

Criminal offences and cheating are two different things and you know it. If it's not breaking the law and it's a personal issue then I'm all for injunctions, it's not our business to know but past criminal offences are different as it's a matter of public safety. Cheating with a bimbo is hardly comparable to allowing peadophiles to work in schools.

Thanks for making that comparision though, it's made your argument look a whole lot more ridiculous.

[patsylimerick]

The thing is, though, that everyone could take the pish as much as they wanted when E television or whatever it's called arrived on the scene, but they shut up laughing when the viewing figures came in. Same's true of all those people needling to lynch paps after Diana died. By virtue of the fact that they were on the streets crying about someone they'd never met - they were probably the people buying the newspapers and magazines that carried coverage of Diana, paid for the pics and encouraged the taking of more. It's way, way too easy to dub all tabloid journalists scum because they are satisfying a voracious appetite for celebrity gossip. A lot of people want it both ways - they want to be able to spit on the paps but they damn sure want a juicy story on the front of The Sun the following morning. Celebrities carry on with the same nonsense. Moaning about how their life's not worth living but wetting themselves with temper if their 'competition' gets more column inches. Load'a'nonsense. Having said ALL of that, I still think the injunctions are probably a good idea. So long as they're not doing anything illegal, it probably is no-one else's business. If the one night stand's got that little regard for herself, and the wife's got that little regard for herself; let them at it.

[Omah]

ROFL at you.

Criminal offences and cheating are two different things and you know it. If it's not breaking the law and it's a personal issue then I'm all for injunctions, it's not our business to know but past criminal offences are different as it's a matter of public safety. Cheating with a bimbo is hardly comparable to allowing peadophiles to work in schools.

Thanks for making that comparision though, it's made your argument look a whole lot more ridiculous.

Erm, I didn't say "convicted" paedophiles ..... :nono:

Because of your preferred "privacy of the individual", the sexual preferences of employees would be protected information and therefore unknown to prospective employers ..... ;)

Of course, I could substute "philanderer" for "paedophile" - persistent philandering is not illegal, of course, but it is highly disruptive in the workplace but, again, under your preferred "privacy of the individual", the sexual proclivity of an employees would be protected information and therefore unknown to the employer until it directly affected the productivity of several individuals ..... :eek:

[MTVN]

Erm, I didn't say "convicted" paedophiles ..... :nono:

Because of your preferred "privacy of the individual", the sexual preferences of employees would be protected information and therefore unknown to prospective employers ..... ;)

Of course, I could substute "philanderer" for "paedophile" - persistent philandering is not illegal, of course, but it is highly disruptive in the workplace but, again, under your preferred "privacy of the individual", the sexual proclivity of an employees would be protected information and therefore unknown to the employer until it directly affected the productivity of several individuals ..... :eek:

That's ridiculous, the employer has no right to know the sexual preferences of his workers and it shouldnt be used as a basis for whether someone is appropiate for the job or not

[Omah]

That's ridiculous, the employer has no right to know the sexual preferences of his workers and it shouldnt be used as a basis for whether someone is appropiate for the job or not

Pity the poor employer ..... :(

[Tom4784]

Erm, I didn't say "convicted" paedophiles ..... :nono:

Because of your preferred "privacy of the individual", the sexual preferences of employees would be protected information and therefore unknown to prospective employers ..... ;)

Of course, I could substute "philanderer" for "paedophile" - persistent philandering is not illegal, of course, but it is highly disruptive in the workplace but, again, under your preferred "privacy of the individual", the sexual proclivity of an employees would be protected information and therefore unknown to the employer until it directly affected the productivity of several individuals ..... :eek:

That is among one of the most stupid posts I've read and as a long time member of this forum, that's something.

How would a person's right to privacy protect UNCONVICTED peadophiles? It's not like they would go 'oyah, just to let you know I fiddle with little kids!:xyxwave:' in a job interview isn't it? They'd lie if they were asked about it and the only way you'd know for certain was if they were already convicted of it. If someone hasn't been convicted of a crime then there's no way of knowing about so how would privacy change that really?
The only way your point works was if I included criminal records in my argument of things that should be allowed to be kept private and as I said a few posts back, Past criminal activities could be a public safety issue so they shouldn't be allowed injunctions when it comes to that.

You're really flailing at the moment aren't you?

I'd destroy your point about Employer's being allowed knowledge into an employee's sex life but MTVN did a good enough job of that already. It's hilarious that you still think cheating can be compared to peadophillia though.

[Scarlett.]

You've said this before, I shot it down. Not every celebrity relies on endorsements and the media, not everyone is Katie Price, why tar them all with the same brush? Why should celebrities be denied a private life just so that a bunch of nosey bitches can have something to gossip about for 5 minutes?

Amen :worship:

[Omah]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/05/11/imogen-thomas-footballer-lover-named-by-foreign-papers-not-affected-by-uk-injunctions-115875-23121827/

FOREIGN papers are now naming the celebrities who have taken out gagging orders in Britain – making a further mockery of the law.

Several published the name of the married Premier League *footballer who cheated on his wife in a six-month fling with Big Brother beauty Imogen Thomas.

A Spanish newspaper published a piece saying: “People in the UK bet on almost anything and this time they have bet on the name of the football player and dad unfaithful to his wife with the *ex-girlfriend of Jermain Defoe. (Player named) is the bookies’ favourite. They say there’s no smoke without fire.”

A Peruvian paper also had an article saying: “In the UK they’re casting doubt over the faithfulness of (player named).” Italian media also revealed his identity.

Several innocent people, including TV presenter Gabby Logan and celebrity *political activist Jemima Khan, have already being caught up in the fallout of the controversial orders after being wrongly identified on Twitter as having affairs.

:joker:

Superinjuctions shot down in flames ..... private lives of "protected" celebrities exposed worldwide ...... :hello: :amazed: :cheer2: :thumbs2: :cheer: :evilgrin: :hello:

Americans are bemused that famous people in the UK are able to stop the publication of details of their private lives, because it goes against one of their country's founding principles, free speech.

The US has a booming industry in entertainment, gossip and celebrity publications, mainly based in New York and Los Angeles.

None of them need to worry much about injunctions.

The equivalent in the US would be something called prior restraint, but there are very few successful examples.

"The First Amendment of the US Constitution protects freedom of speech and courts are very, very reluctant to prohibit somebody from saying something," says Steven Wagner, a litigation lawyer at Wagner Davis in New York.

:cool:;):cool:

[bananarama]

Celebrities including footballers make their living by being presented to the public. Anyone with a career involving the public I believe have no right to privacy laws. They make their bed and should rest in it.

People accused of a crime however is far more difficult. Some have said for example paedo'es should have no right to privacy. I agree with the sentiment but in practice some accused of a crime are actually inoccent and yet they would suffer not only false accusation but also public persecution.

Also if for example a paedo was attcked the attacker would be commiting a crime by taking the law into their own hands A wrongly accused person may be seriously hurt or worse. So a privacy law involving criminal is a way of protecting hot heads who want revenge that the law does not give.......

Even convicted criminals are sometimes not guilty. For that reason and that reason only serious criminal accusations should be subject to a privacy law....

Actors, actressess, sports folk and presenters should accept the consequences of their carreer if they beahave in a dishonourable manner......

The internet blows a hole in the concept of privacy so enforcing any law should there be one is probably impossible anyhow......

[Omah]

Celebrities including footballers make their living by being presented to the public. Anyone with a career involving the public I believe have no right to privacy laws. They make their bed and should rest in it.

People accused of a crime however is far more difficult. Some have said for example paedo'es should have no right to privacy. I agree with the sentiment but in practice some accused of a crime are actually inoccent and yet they would suffer not only false accusation but also public persecution.

Also if for example a paedo was attcked the attacker would be commiting a crime by taking the law into their own hands A wrongly accused person may be seriously hurt or worse. So a privacy law involving criminal is in a way of protecting hot heads who want revenge that the law does not give.......

Even convicted criminals are sometimes not guilty. For that reason and that reason only serious criminal accusations should be subject to a privacy law....

Actors, actressess, sports folk and presenters should accept the consequences of their carreer if they beahave in a dishonourable manner......

The internet blows a hole in the concept of privacy so enforcing any law should their be one is probably impossible anyhow......

I agree with most of that ..... the "criminal" aspect is, of course, very tricky ..... ;)

[Omah]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3575642/Actor-who-paid-Wayne-Rooney-hookers-for-sex-has-admitted-guilt-to-his-devastated-wife.html

A LEADING actor who paid one of Wayne Rooney's hookers for sex has finally admitted his guilt to his devastated wife, The Sun can reveal.

He made the emotional confession despite winning a super-injunction gagging us from publishing any details of his romp with vice girl Helen Wood, 24.

Last night it was not clear if the star's decision to come clean would be enough to save his marriage.

But the revelation comes just days after the actor, who has appeared both on TV and in films, was named and shamed alongside other celebrities on micro-blogging website Twitter.


:evilgrin:

[Omah]

self-serving stance on privacy is excruciating

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/13/goldsmiths-jemima-kahn-superinjunction

To recap: Jemima Khan (Goldsmith as was) is the freedom of information champion – "Twitter's greatest advocate", as she described herself last year – who recently used an infinitesimal amount of her gazillion-pound inheritance to post bail for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. On Monday she awoke to what she called "a bloody nightmare" as a Twitter user falsely claimed that she had taken out a superinjunction to prevent intimate photos of her and Jeremy Clarkson becoming public.

Well. Were the union a matter of fact, it would surely represent history's greatest instance of a man punching above his weight (don't forget Quasimodo never actually pulled Esmeralda). But it is a fabrication, possibly chinese-whispered out of the fact that Jemima and Zac did take out a privacy injunction in 2008 when their emails were hacked.

So now our WikiLeaks devotee – Jemima is particularly passionate about "the free flow of information in this digital age" – is frightfully cross that someone has published sensational material with no regard for its consequences. She insists people distinguish between government and corporate transparency and an individual's privacy, to which the only response is: have you been on the internet lately? People do not care to distinguish between the importance of a North Korean nuclear test and whether Miley Cyrus is wearing knickers. Good luck regulating it.

Perhaps Jemima really is unable to see that in the brave new technological world it is impossible to have freedom of information without freedom of misinformation. But she will find it difficult to escape the irony that the existence of the Goldsmith siblings' superinjunction was first revealed by a certain website close to her heart. WikiLeaks: proudly bringing you details of secret US drone strikes and minor celebrity gagging orders since 2006.

:joker:

[Jords]

Dont agree with them. Celebrities know what theyre getting theirself into when they decide to strike it for fame, and some become role models for people, its fake to let the public believe a particular celeb is oaky coaky because theyve got an injuction of something which would be shown negatively.

[Omah]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/8513610/England-football-star-obtains-gagging-order.html

Another married Premier League footballer has obtained a gagging order in an attempt to keep details of his private life secret.

The footballer, who plays for England and has children, has become the latest celebrity to use human rights legislation to hide details of his "indiscretions" with another woman from the public.

The orders have sparked accusations that privacy laws are being abused to protect the reputations of celebrities and high-profile sportsmen.

However, unlike previous injunctions, the footballer applied for the order jointly with the other woman.

Maybe "the other woman" is married to another "high-profile sportsman" ?

I hope they're "outed" soon .....

[Pyramid*]

In certain circumstances - yes I agree with them. There are basic rights to privacy for matters that are very private.

When celebs chose to use them to basically cover their backsides when they have been found to do something illegal, immoral etc - that they are used to avoid embarrassing them, or used to avoid any negative impact on their careers, or the parties concerned - absolutely not. If the play with fire, they should expect to get burnt and suffer the consequences. Simples.

Every day common folk who don't have wads of cash, who are caught - have to live with losing their jobs, careers ruined, relationships being damaged etc when they playing with fire: why should celebs who can buy silence be allowed to.

They say money talks. Money also silences.

[Omah]

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/190968/Dead-and-buried-Super-Injunction-exclusive/

BRITAIN’S bonkers legal system has got so crazy that there is now a super-injunction hiding the blushes of someone who is dead.

The top-secret order was taken out in 2008 by an elderly man.

But under the crackpot system of gagging orders that has sprung up to allow stars to keep their secrets out of the newspapers, it remains in place despite his death.

And the Press is still prevented from revealing any information about the case, including who sought the injunction and what they were attempting to hush up.

The news came to light as the Daily Star Sunday trawled through thousands of pages of legal documents to reveal the true extent of the anonymous privacy injunctions.

Farcical ..... :rolleyes:

[Omah]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1387296/Premier-League-star-TWO-injunctions-wedding.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

A footballer used court gagging orders to hide an affair months before his wedding and another just after, it was claimed yesterday.

The Premier League player’s first injunction meant his bride may have been in the dark about his cheating when she married him.

Months later he was caught again and won a second legal ban on details of the affair being made public.

The revelation came a day after the Daily Mail told how a separate gagging order was granted to a married England footballer to hide an affair.

Such bans raise concerns about the extent to which wealthy celebrities can deceive their own families, and their fans, without fear of exposure.

Yeah, the old "living a lie" syndrome ..... :rolleyes:

[Grimnir]

everyone has the right to privacy until proven guilty of something
press are scum

[Omah]

everyone has the right to privacy until proven guilty of something
press are scum

Well, in the Premiership footballer's case, he's admitted being guilty of cheating on his wife, lying to his sponsors and deceiving his fans ..... ;)

He may also be guilty, by association, of accusing someone of a serious criminal act ..... :eek:

[Crimson Dynamo]

've been in India of late, and spent most of my time not looking at the internet, not reading newspapers, and not watching television, on account of there being more interesting things to look at, ie India itself.

Two days into my trip, a major story broke when Osama bin Laden got an essential bit of his head shot off and decided to give up his career of international terrorising in favour of a nice lie down and a rot. It's odd when a massive news event occurs while you're abroad – because you don't learn about it through familiar channels, it somehow feels as though the event hasn't "properly" happened – a bit like you're reading the capsule synopsis of a movie rather than watching the movie itself. It's not real till Huw Edwards says its real. In fact, I bet even Edwards himself doesn't believe the news until he hears himself saying it, which possibly explains the perpetually surprised look on his face.

Anyway, a story that garnered rather less attention in India was the ongoing superinjunctions kerfuffle back home, which reached a head when an anonymous tweeter splurged some of the pertinent names and details, annoying Jemima Khan in the process by including a gruesome fictional claim about her featuring in a series of "intimate photos" with Jeremy Clarkson, a set of images that categorically have never existed in the real world, yet are now being published, enhanced and reprinted inside our own rich imaginations. I see a new one each time I blink. Often they move. Many are in 3D. All are unforgivably graphic. In the vast majority of them, Clarkson's wearing a look of tense concentration mixed with bewildered amazement. Occasionally he's weeping.

But I digress. The glaring problem with getting a superinjunction in 2011 is that they no longer guarantee superanonymity. In fact, they increasingly guarantee the opposite. As soon as the faintest whiff of the superinjunction's existence slips out, the gossip is magnified tenfold, and before long half of Twitter jokingly adopts your name as a mantra.

So. Getting a superinjunction isn't just draconian, but counterproductive. I can imagine a few instances where they might be justified (cases of blackmail, say) but on the whole: bad idea. I'm broadly against them, so it's fun seeing them circumnavigated. But what fun there is is also countered by sadness.

Because the majority of the cases we're illicitly learning about aren't shocking corporate coverups but dreary shag-and-tells where the "public interest" defence is virtually nonexistent. It's stuff I don't want to know about people I admire. Maybe I'm squeamish. The press defence for wanting to print this sort of thing consists of three main prongs:

Prong one: Anything a public figure does is, by default, a matter of public interest. That's not true. Take actors. I don't want to know what they get up to off-camera. I don't want that knowledge in my head, getting in the way of their performance. I rather enjoy the suspension of disbelief. They're public figures whose private lives I'd prefer not to hear about.

Prong two: Having "courted the limelight", celebrities shouldn't complain if the attention they desired turns negative. While there are certainly cases where that's fair comment, it 1) assumes all celebs are in it for nothing but adulation and attention and 2) sounds eerily similar to the argument that scantily dressed women are asking for it. Been on TV, like, ever? Then you've waived your right to privacy for life. I once read a Daily Mail article consisting of long-lens paparazzi photographs of the actor Richard O'Sullivan, long since retired from our screens, accompanied by text sneering about how old and frail he was looking these days. Serves him right for courting the limelight back in 1975. And for ageing, like every human being on Earth.

And what, precisely, constitutes "courting the limelight" anyway? There are countless journalists using Twitter accounts to broadcast their personal musings to as many followers as they can muster. Is that "courting the limelight" too? If one of them attracts 500,000 followers, can we justifiably follow them to the beach and take photographs of their hilarious sagging arse? How about 50,000 followers? How about 5,000? Let's say 50. More than 50, and it's in the public interest. Only just, but hey, it counts.

The final prong is the dumbest: celebrities "trade off their image" and therefore "owe it to their fans" to live up to their reputations.

Horse****. If celebrities "owe" their fans anything at all, it's a bit of transitory entertainment. A few moments of distraction. Celebrities are buskers and their "fans" are passersby, and that's as far as the relationship goes.

If I've paid to see Keanu Reeves in a movie, he owes me 90 minutes of dialogue and wooden expressions, and that's that. He can spend the rest of his life masturbating to abattoir footage if he likes: it's none of my business. And if I approach him in the street for an autograph and he tells me to piss off, that's fair enough too. He probably wouldn't say it very convincingly, but that's Keanu Reeves for you.

So: superinjunctions bad. Prurience equally bad. In summary: everything is horrible.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/16/superinjunctions-guarantee-loss-of-anonymity

[DrunkerThanMoses]

Yes and No

In some cases I think their wrong.. e.g the Imogean deal right now, he be named for what he has done, i fell bad for his wife and family.

In others I do agree they are needed

[GiRTh]

Not needed what so ever. The press have themselves to blame by running too many tittle tattle stories so we now have injunctions for stories that are definitely in the public interest. A celebrity chef and businessman breaking employment law is definitely in the public interest. The Guardian running a storiy that Trafigular were dumping toxic waste of the Ivory coast is definitely in the public interest.

It sickens me to know that if Tiger Woods were British we would never have found out about his numerous affairs. This is not freedom of press in any way shape or form,

[Omah]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13453626

An order granting anonymity to ex-Royal Bank of Scotland boss Sir Fred Goodwin has been lifted at the High Court.

The existence of Sir Fred's injunction had already been made public by an MP using parliamentary privilege.

The High Court ruling followed a further intervention by Lord Stoneham who used parliamentary privilege to reveal more details to peers.

Its lifting comes ahead of the publication of a report on super-injunctions from the Master of the Rolls.

Ministers have indicated unhappiness at courts' granting of injunctions, following controversy about celebrities using them to hide details of their personal lives.

But the coalition has decided against introducing a Privacy Act to address these concerns, the BBC has learned.

Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt and Justice Secretary Ken Clarke are understood to have ruled the option out at a meeting on Thursday.

Instead, ministers will consider producing more detailed guidance for judges on how to interpret the Human Rights Act, which guarantees a right to privacy.

Clive Coleman Legal correspondent, BBC News

This is a case of parliamentarians judging that there's a public interest in revealing private information, when the judge hearing the case has decided there isn't. A constitutional tension, if not a full-blown crisis.

Somewhat curiously, Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt has ruled out the possibility of Parliament passing a privacy law. This is in spite of a vigorous press campaign against our judge-made privacy law, and in particular, the powerful secret injunctions that enforce it.

If MPs continue to break privacy injunctions using parliamentary privilege, and people continue to reveal supposedly protected details online, the courts will start to look impotent.

Certain judges already look like self-interested lackeys of the rich ..... :eek:

[Omah]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13465286

Lord Neuberger, who is the most senior civil judge in England and Wales, has chaired a year-long inquiry by a committee of judges and lawyers.

The committee of judges said:

Super-injunctions and other injunctions "can only be granted when they are strictly necessary"
There was "no doubt" that super-injunctions were once granted "far too often"
Only two super-injunctions had been granted since January 2010
Super-injunctions were now only granted for very short periods where secrecy is essential
Whenever any "anonymised" order was made the court should provide a reasoned judgement for its decision

The report states "the procedure will enable the media to be informed about applications in advance as parliament envisaged".

Well, it's a start .....

Clive Coleman Legal correspondent, BBC News

The report reaffirms the critical importance of open justice.

It recommends guidance on informing the media about injunction hearings.

That will stress the importance of press freedom and the report makes clear it will be a very rare case where advance notice of a hearing is not given to a media organisation likely to be affected by an order.

The Master of the Rolls acknowledged that too many anonymous injunctions had been granted prior to the John Terry case in January 2010.

However, since then, only two super-injunctions had been granted and the media have been present at many other injunction hearings, which they have neither opposed or appealed.

Open justice is what we want ..... ;)

[Omah]

Thomas is now suing Twitter

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1389208/Imogen-Thomas-affair-Super-injunction-footballer-suing-Twitter.html#ixzz1Mv6vAhfX

Documents filed at London's High Court confirm the Premier League star, who won an anonymity order banning the media from publishing stories about his alleged affair with the reality-TV star Miss Thomas, launched the action on May 18.

The action claims 'persons unknown' are described as those 'responsible for the publication of information on the Twitter accounts'.

It refers to the widely-reported posting on May 8 of a series of Tweets purporting to name a number of celebrities who had obtained injunctions.

It comes as an inquiry admitted today that injunctions used to cover up the alleged affairs of the rich and famous are impossible to police on social networking sites such as Twitter.

Twitter is based in San Francisco, California, with servers and offices in San Antonio, Texas, and Boston, Massachusetts.

It is not known if the company has any assets in Britain. It is therefore outside the jurisdiction of British courts, making legal action more complicated.

There would also be difficulty in identifying who actually wrote the Tweets, many of which were 're-tweeted', or published again by other users.

'It was only a question of time before someone who has obtained a super-injunction, would try to bring proceedings for contempt of court against the Tweeters and those supplying them with the information at an injuncted newspaper,' Jennifer McDermott, head of media and public law at Withers LLP, told the Telegraph.

'To do this, a Court application will first be made to get Twitter to divulge the identities of the relevant ''wrongdoers'' and, if successful, contempt proceedings could then be brought against them, which could result in them being fined or even imprisoned.'

She said that legal proceedings against Twitter would be 'arduous' process because it is based in California where 'free speech rules'.

Hahahahahaha ..... I hope the Yanks tell &$*^ £*)%$ to FO ..... :joker:

[patsylimerick]

everyone has the right to privacy until proven guilty of something
press are scum

All of them? Really? What about foreign correspondents who work in war zones? Those who expose abuses of power, fiscal wrongdoing, child abuse? All of them? Scum? What about Crime Correspondents? Political correspondents? Sports journalists? Every TV news programme? Every newspaper journalist? All scum? Or just tabloid hacks? People write what sells. If 'scum' sells, what does that say about the consumers of the product? There are a very great many brilliant people who work in the media. The staff of Heat do not the entire profession make.

[Smithy]

Why does omah feel the need to repeatedly bump and post news articles in ever thread he has an opinion in http://oi56.tinypic.com/23ubh3b.jpg

[Omah]

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13477811

Legal proceedings are being taken by a professional footballer against Twitter for allegedly publishing information covered by a super-injunction.

The player, identified only by the initials CTB, is also known to be taking action against the Sun newspaper and ex-Big Brother star Imogen Thomas.

Papers lodged in the High Court are against Twitter and "persons unknown".

They request disclosure of Twitter users said to be behind the publication of confidential information.

The order requires Twitter to disclose the requested information within seven days - or within the appropriate time required by the law in California, where Twitter has its headquarters.

Twitter has refused to comment on the matter.

Media lawyer Nick Lockett said the legal action against Twitter may not have much effect.


All this legal action must be costing *$%^ &*£$^% a small fortune ..... :joker:

[King Gizzard]

haha he's a ****whit. you can't simply sue twitter. theyre worth much more than little giggsy. If he sued them, then surely his identity would have to be revealed somehow?

[arista]

"Thomas is now suing Twitter"

Well her legal team is going to try.
But that is still under debate.


She can swear on Her Bible
in her bog.

[Pyramid*]

If ever there was a example for such injuctions not to be used to silence infidelities / law breaks etc: this has to be the the prime example.

I cannot stand Thomas, but it does seem that she's being totally fed to the lions here..... she's not helped, but if ever the law needs changed - this has to be the prime example of why.

A married celebrity can 'play around', do what they like to cover their infidelity, protect themselves from being known as a liar, cheat, cannot be trusted, cannot be used as a 'role model' to their fans, cannot be a true clean cut idol as portrayed by their sponsors: because they have money to buy silence.

there may be some good comes of this after all. (Doubt it though...too many 'in power' also use the very same loophole to cover their own misdemeanours!)

[Omah]

Football star's plan to sue Twitter leads to rise in users repeating his name online

Speculation over the identity of the professional footballer who is taking legal action against Twitter reached new heights today as hundreds of users of the micro-blogging site claimed to know his name.

The married star, who is referred to as CTB in court documents, is said to have had a ‘sexual relationship’ with Big Brother’s Imogen Thomas.

He obtained an order preventing The Sun newspaper from revealing his name last month and has now launched proceedings against Twitter and ‘persons unknown’ after users claimed to have identified a number of individuals said to have taken out gagging orders.

But the legal bid led to one player’s name being mentioned on Twitter at a rate of up to 16 times a minute.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1389208/Twitter-sued-super-injunction-footballer-affair-Imogen-Thomas.html#ixzz1N0Xq0ptu

:joker:

[Pyramid*]

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1389208/Twitter-sued-super-injunction-footballer-affair-Imogen-Thomas.html#ixzz1N0Xq0ptu

:joker:

Ryan Giggs is suing twitter. Can't Imogen why!!

[King Gizzard]

He wants every users account name who has mentioned him and Imogens name, and a journalist who mentioned his name on twitter is facing jail. Absolutely pathetic.

Welcome to China.

[Claymores]

Rubbish.

There are often other people inadvertently involved like wives and children who are totally innocent and suffering enough already. Why should their names be dragged through the media?

Each case is different but there's certainly a need for such injunctions sometimes.

If you don't really want to screw around with a cheap ex-Miss Wales then why do it? It was gonna get into the papers. The wife deserves to know if he's messed about with a z-lister

[Omah]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology/2011/05/22/thousands-unite-to-name-imogen-thomas-injunction-footballer-on-twitter-115875-23147479/#ixzz1N2HREr1f

The sex-cheat footballer who is suing Twitter had turned himself into an international laughing stock by last night – named and ridiculed by defiant internet *users around the world.

The shamed star’s decision to take on the social networking site after posts named him as the “family man” player who cheated on his wife with ex-Big Brother contestant Imogen Thomas backfired in spectacular fashion. Even people who had never heard of him were lampooning the Premier League ace’s farcical attempt to curb free speech.

The farcical situation means that if the player – only *referred to as CTB in legal documents – is selected for his team’s match this afternoon, virtually the entire stadium will know his identity. Rival fans were openly using websites to co-ordinate chants about him at today’s games.

Legal experts estimate the player has already spent around €228,037 on legal fees, but as everyone on Twitter can see trending topics, it means the site’s 200 million global users now know his guilty secret.

Websites outside the UK not covered by the court gagging order joined in the mass scramble to embarrass him. US Forbes magazine named the player directly, as did popular US gossip website Gawker.

Twitter is based in San Francisco, *effectively putting it out of the reach of British courts, in a country where the First Amendment enshrines the right to free speech. If he took action in California, he would be automatically named.


:joker: :laugh::laugh2::cheer2::evilgrin:

[Omah]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/twitter/8528823/Tweets-about-super-injunction-footballer-spike-after-attempts-to-gag-Twitter.html

The number of tweets about a Premier League footballer who attempted to gag discussion on Twitter of his alleged affair with Imogen Thomas have reached 30,000.

:thumbs2:

[arista]

Yes what is his name?

[Omah]

Yes what is his name?

Blackpool FC fans may know ..... ;)

[Tom4784]

It was always going to get out really, I'm guessing it's more to keep the press at bay now.

[billy123]

Todays herald is funny if the dumbass hadnt of behaved like such a smacked arse about it nobody would have cared less and it would be forgotten about by now.

http://a.yfrog.com/img616/1783/yzmnn.jpg

[Lee.]

Does anybody really care??

I do think the wife has a right to know she's married to a cheating scumbag but on the other hand I don't think these cheap wannabe wag types should get away with sleeping with other womens husbands and then making a fortune from selling the story..

[arista]

Does anybody really care??

I do think the wife has a right to know she's married to a cheating scumbag but on the other hand I don't think these cheap wannabe wag types should get away with sleeping with other womens husbands and then making a fortune from selling the story..



Yes they want to Hiss at him.

[Omah]

Todays herald is funny if the dumbass hadnt of behaved like such a smacked arse about it nobody would have cared less and it would be forgotten about by now.

http://a.yfrog.com/img616/1783/yzmnn.jpg

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13491086

Sunday Herald names footballer accused on Twitter

The Sunday Herald is the first mainstream UK publication to do this.

Its front page has an image of a man whose eyes are covered with a black bar which features the word "censored".

It comes after Twitter users reacted to a footballer's attempt to find out who is putting information about him on the website by posting new messages online.

In its editorial explaining the move, the Sunday Herald said it named the sportsman being linked to the injunction on Twitter because it was "unsustainable" for newspapers to be prevented from sharing information which is easily available on the internet.

Richard Walker, editor of the Sunday Herald, said: "It seems to us a ludicrous situation where we are supposed to keep from our readers the identity of someone who anybody can find out on the internet at the click of a mouse, and in fact many people have already done so."

He added that he had taken extensive legal advice and was not expecting any legal consequences because the injunction was not valid in Scotland - only in England.

:joker:

[patsylimerick]

It seems to have moved away entirely from the issue of the morality or immorality of the affair and onto a much more serious discussion about the level of dopiness and ego involved in going to such lengths to keep it quiet. This will surely go down in sporting history as one of the most remarkable own goals of all time.

[Omah]

It seems to have moved away entirely from the issue of the morality or immorality of the affair and onto a much more serious discussion about the level of dopiness and ego involved in going to such lengths to keep it quiet. This will surely go down in sporting history as one of the most remarkable own goals of all time.

..... and one of the most expensive, when the player's legal bills (currently £300k) come in, along with cost of any repurcussions, e.g. loss of sponsorship, divorce and settlement, etc .....

[Iceman]

Todays herald is funny if the dumbass hadnt of behaved like such a smacked arse about it nobody would have cared less and it would be forgotten about by now.

http://a.yfrog.com/img616/1783/yzmnn.jpg

It's clearly Drogba

[Shaun]

think it might be Celestine Babayaro.

[James]

I don't understand how it is any of the public's business to know if a footballer has been having an affair with an ex-BB HM.

It is just gossipy tittle-tattle.

Another problem with the reporting of this case is that the press have a huge axe to grind.

[Zippy]

If you don't really want to screw around with a cheap ex-Miss Wales then why do it? It was gonna get into the papers. The wife deserves to know if he's messed about with a z-lister

of course the wife deserves to know but it doesn't have to be via the tabloids! Theyre two separate issues.

anyways..

at this point its a complete farce. Everybody knows who it is and the utter idiot just keeps drawing more attention to himself by trying to control the whole media world! Nobody can control the internet and its pathetic and arrogant to even try.

He deserves to be strung out now for his continued stupidity. Ive never thought the person themselves deserved protection for their own outrageous behaviour(they chose to do it knowing the consequences) but their family and children did. At this point though his name is out there so its too late.

[BB_Eye]

Great related article by Nick Cohen on Fred "no remorse" Goodwin trying to silence those blowing the whistle on his sexual improprieties as head of RBS.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/22/nick-cohen-fred-goodwin-superinjunctions?INTCMP=SRCH
This man is bullying corporate scum writ large and nobody is allowed to talk about what he was doing when RBS were sinking Britain into the worst financial crisis in living memory.

[Omah]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3594850/Imogen-Thomas-rat-hit-by-terrace-chants.html#ixzz1N8GrsHtN

BRITAIN'S worst-kept secret was close to becoming public knowledge last night as a footballer said to be trying to silence a Big Brother beauty over an affair saw his legal battle descend into farce.

Thousands of soccer fans mocked his alleged efforts to conceal his shame with a court injunction by launching lewd terrace CHANTS about the gag on sexy Imogen Thomas, 28. The ace's wife was in the stadium.

:joker:

[billy123]

It's clearly Drogba:hugesmile: :hugesmile: are you mad! its not hard to see its gos from big brother 4.

[billy123]

I don't understand how it is any of the public's business to know if a footballer has been having an affair with an ex-BB HM.

It is just gossipy tittle-tattle.

Another problem with the reporting of this case is that the press have a huge axe to grind.
I dare say nobody would really give a damn who he was romping with it would have been reported in the gossip rags and have been forgotten by now.

Its his arrogant smacked arse attitude and the fact that he thinks he has the right to basically tell other people to shut up that has made him both a target and a laughing stock.

Its not about privacy its about freedom of speech.

What a shame he nearly got to retirement as a respected footballer but now he will just be remembered as another tosspot footballing brat.

[Omah]

The football star who had an affair with Imogen Thomas was being named every second on Twitter last night - making a mockery of a High Court judge's ban.

It means pressure on the sporting idol is becoming intense to admit he cheated on his wife with Big Brother star Imogen and tried to hush it up.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/05/23/imogen-thomas-row-football-star-named-50-000-times-as-twitter-makes-farce-of-judge-s-ban-115875-23150420/#ixzz1NA9vZm5X

:evilgrin:

[Omah]

http://www.thejournal.ie/newspapers-plan-new-bid-to-unmask-superinjunction-footballer-141612-May2011/

BRITAIN’S NEWSPAPERS ARE set to return to the High Court in London today in a fresh bid to unmask the footballer behind a superinjunction barring them from publishing details of an alleged affair.

The new attempt to have the gag lifted follows the decision of a Scottish Sunday tabloid newspaper to print a photograph of the footballer in question on its front page – only barely concealing his face, and making it clear that the footballer was the one at the centre of the row.

Within hours of the paper being published, users were circulating photographs of its front page online – further undermining the effect of the gag.

Today, Sky News reports, the newspapers are expected to return to the courts arguing that the publication of the details in a neighbouring jurisdiction has conclusively undermined the credibility of the superinjunction.

BBC News adds that the UK’s attorney general is not considering legal action against the Sunday newspaper in question, giving further credence to the idea that the injunction is simply now unworkable.

:cool:

[joeysteele]

Does anybody really care??

I do think the wife has a right to know she's married to a cheating scumbag but on the other hand I don't think these cheap wannabe wag types should get away with sleeping with other womens husbands and then making a fortune from selling the story..

Good comment,I agree with this.

[Omah]

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/864060-injunctions-unsustainable-and-unfair-says-pm-amid-ctb-footballer-row

Speaking on ITV's Daybreak, Mr Cameron said the government and parliament will now look at bringing in new legislation to cover privacy laws.

However, on the same day that newspaper editors are seeking to have married footballer CTB's super-injunction overturned by the High Court, the prime minister warned there would be no 'simple answer'.

He said: 'It is rather unsustainable, this situation, where newspapers can't print something that clearly everybody else is talking about.

'But there's a difficulty here because the law is the law and the judges must interpret what the law is.

'What I've said in the past is, the danger is that judgments are effectively writing a new law which is what parliament is meant to do.
David Cameron Daybreak super-injunction Imogen Thomas Mr Cameron was asked about super-injunctions on Daybreak (ITV)

'So I think the government, parliament has got to take some time out, have a proper look at this, have a think about what we can do.

Mr Cameron said the emergence of Twitter and other social networks as genuine drivers of the national agenda has changed the way the press operates - and hinted UK legislation should move with the times.

;)

[Beastie]

No.

[BB_Eye]

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/864060-injunctions-unsustainable-and-unfair-says-pm-amid-ctb-footballer-row



;)
Don't expect much. Too many interested parties advising and funding the Conservatives.

Oh wait, forget I said that. *looks for a lawyer*

[Omah]

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/9185703-ryan-giggs-named-as-super-injunction-footballer-by-wikipedia

In a section entitled “Gagging order (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Giggs#Gagging_order)”, Wikipedia states “In May 2011, it was reported in non-UK media sources that Giggs was the identity of CTB in CTB v News Group Newspapers, a footballer who had applied for and obtained an anonymised gagging order in relation to an alleged extra-marital affair with model Imogen Thomas.”

The article continues “Giggs had subsequently sued the social networking site Twitter after his identity was revealed by a user who had revealed the identities of other individuals that had taken out so-called "superinjunctions.” It then tauntingly shares the remarks of a blogger for Forbes magazine, who recently wrote “Giggs has not heard of the Streisand effect", naughtily noting that mentions of his name had mushroomed after the Twitter suit had been reported in the news.

:whistle:

[Omah]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/committee-to-look-at-gagging-orders-2288063.html

The High Court refused to allow journalists to name a footballer who allegedly had a relationship with reality TV star Imogen Thomas.

Lawyers for The Sun asked for the controversial privacy ruling to be lifted after a Scottish newspaper named the star at the weekend and Prime Minister David Cameron said he knew his identity "like everybody else".

But Mr Justice Eady rejected a fresh application by News Group Newspapers to discharge the privacy injunction relating to the player, referred to in court as CTB, on the basis that to continue it would be "futile", given recent widespread publicity about his identity.

The judge said: "The court's duty remains to try and protect the claimant, and particularly his family, from intrusion and harassment so long as it can."

Jeez, the law is an ass ..... :rolleyes:

[Omah]

preventing details of his affair with Imogen Thomas

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1389841/Ryan-Giggs-named-Commons-footballer-injunction-preventing-details-affair-Imogen-Thomas.html#ixzz1NBtXYq19


The footballer at the centre of the gagging order over his affair with Big Brother star Imogen Thomas was named today in the House of Commons as Ryan Giggs.

MP John Hemmings used parliamentary privilege to name the star saying 75,000 people had already outed him on Twitter adding it would be 'impracticable' to prison everyone on the website who had named him.

Speaker John Bercow leapt out of his seat after Mr Hemmings said the footballer's name to try and protect his identity.

Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming, who has been campaigning on the issue, was telling parliament that it was not practical to imprison the 75,000 Twitter followers who have already named the player when he uttered his name.

He named the star just minutes after the High Court refused to lift a ban on naming the sportsman who had a relationship with the Big Brother star.

Mr Bercow said: 'Let me just say to the honourable gentleman, I know he's already done it, but occasions such as this are occasions for raising the issues of principle involved, not seeking to flout for whatever purpose.'

Mr Hemming responded: 'The question is what the Government's view is on an enforceability of a law that clearly doesn't have public consent.'

Attorney General Dominic Grieve, who would be responsible for any prosecution for contempt, had earlier said during a Parliamentary debate on the injunction issue: 'It is our duty as parliamentarians to uphold the rule of law.'

Despite thousands of people naming him on Twitter, the Press still cannot name the star over his alleged affair with Big Brother's Imogen Thomas.

I believe they just have ..... :joker:

[arista]

Ryan you dirty Git.
Did he give it to her Hard?

its on all TV news and Radio.


Ryan Giggs run to spain or something.

[arista]

Todays herald is funny if the dumbass hadnt of behaved like such a smacked arse about it nobody would have cared less and it would be forgotten about by now.

http://a.yfrog.com/img616/1783/yzmnn.jpg



Yes the grey bits of hair
Ryan you dirty Git.

[Omah]

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

Mr Hemming named him during an urgent Commons question on privacy orders.

Using parliamentary privilege to break the court order, he said it would not be practical to imprison the 75,000 Twitter users who had named the player.

Hahahahaha ..... :joker:

[GiRTh]

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



Hahahahaha ..... :joker::joker:

[Vicky.]

he said it would not be practical to imprison the 75,000 Twitter users who had named the player.

Really?:o :laugh2:

[arista]

Yes the Bubble Burst today by a LibDem MP

[BB_Eye]

Uneexpected smart move from a Lib Dem. :shocked:

[Omah]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3596944/ITS-RYAN-GIGGS.html#ixzz1NEBu2dMe

Lib Dem Mr Hemming later said he identified married dad-of-two Giggs, 37, because his lawyers were targeting ordinary people simply for gossiping about him.

He added: "When he sued Twitter, it was clear what he was doing. He was going after the ordinary people who have been gossiping about him on Twitter."

Who does this Giggs think he is ?

He's just a footballer with a dick for brains ..... :rolleyes:

[Omah]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1390337/Imogen-Thomas-told-STILL-t-footballer-gagging-order.html#ixzz1NGZUEynE

The High Court refused for the third time to let journalists name the married star, alleged to have had a sexual relationship with the 28-year-old reality TV star.

Mr Justice Eady dismissed the argument yesterday saying that discharging the gagging order relating to CTB would be 'futile' because of the widespread publicity that was already in the public domain.

His decision was backed up later in the afternoon by Mr Justice Tugendhat who said there would be a 'cruel and destructive media frenzy'.

David Price QC, speaking on behalf of Ms Thomas agreed with the attempt to lift the injunction by News group Newspapers saying his client had been branded a 'blackmailer' throughout the world.

'She cannot tell anybody his name. That is the consequence of the order at present, which might seem a little bizarre seeing that the world is talking about my client's relationship with this claimant.'

Speaking on behalf of the star, known only as CTB, Hugh Tomlinson QC said that 'while playing the public role of victim', she had made a substantial sum of money from the case by selling her story to a number of newspapers. He also claimed that the footballer would be subject to 'wall-to-wall excoriation' in the Press.

He said: 'If the injunction were to be discharged in relation to her details, she would attempt to put a large amount of more private information into the public domain, some true, doubtless some false.'

According to the Sun, Mr Price told Mr Justice Eady after his decision to uphold the injunction: 'She has not had an opportunity to rebut the allegations being made against her.

'My client has been branded a blackmailer throughout the whole world on the basis of a hearing that she wasn't even notified of. My client's position is that she wishes to serve her defence and proceed with the matter to trial.'

He also said he wanted the footballer to attend court to be given the opportunity to justify the continuation of the injunction.


There's no chance of Giggs facing Imo in court - he's played the liar and the coward so far, why should he change ..... :rolleyes:

[Omah]

http://www.thedrum.co.uk/news/2011/05/24/21821-ryan-giggs-and-the-super-injunction-crisis-pr-analysis/

Stephen Lepitak
Public Relations / UK

PR guru Max Clifford has claimed that footballer Ryan Giggs could have kept his alleged affair with Imogen Thomas private had he not taken out a super injunction.

Clifford, who is representing Thomas, told ITV’s morning programme Daybreak that the Manchester United midfielder highlighted the relationship by taking out the injunction to prevent people from knowing about it.

His identity has been spread through out Twitter since he took out the injunction to prevent the media from reporting his name in connection with the alleged affair as a result.

''That's the irony of it. If Ryan Giggs hadn't taken out a super-injunction, probably we wouldn't know what had been going on. It's only because of that, and of course the fact that, in that super-injunction that he got to protect his privacy and that of his family, he named Imogen, that the whole thing started down that trail that led to it coming out in Parliament yesterday,” said Clifford.

Meanwhile, Paul Smith, crisis management specialist for Citypress said that Giggs should now be looking at his own PR management rather than any law suits he may have in mind.

“We are far more used to dealing with corporate crises than taking on the might of Max Clifford in the scandal arena but if Giggs asked for advice now I’d tell him to pay his lawyers what he owes, thank them through gritted teeth for successfully making him the Anti Cause and then set aside whatever cash he was planning on spending to try and sue 75,000 Twitter users to pay off Imogen Thomas and prevent her selling an exclusive,” advised Smith.

“He could then agree to his own exclusive with one big tabloid to talk about the whole legal battle, not the details of his affair, giving his fee to a suitable charity and trying to explain his thinking. This would hopefully give the media some kind of closure over the whole issue – which has become more about the super injunction than the alleged affair it concealed – and social media can move on to its next freedom of speech scalp for freedom of speech while he tries to repair his marriage.”

Smith added that while he wasn’t interested in Gigg’s private life, he was intrigued as to what possessed him to take on a legal battle that he was unlikely to win.

“Was he trying to protect his family from details? Doing it on principle? Driven by his legal team? The fact that it became a Parliamentary issue just shows how far beyond a simple ‘kiss and tell’ this has evolved and that’s largely his fault.”



Even Giggs has "feet of clay" ..... :laugh:

[arista]

http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2011/May/Week4/15998965.jpg

Any Press men that mention Ryan Giggs name
are banned from future events.

[bobby21]

And the parody's start..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdO8lxHoUBw

:laugh2:

[arista]

The injunction farce goes on! Irish paper flouts
gagging order obtained by married entertainer
who used it to cover up affair

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394676/Irish-paper-flouts-gag-love-cheat-star-used-court-order-cover-infidelity.html#ixzz1OU5f7pvA



The Lucky Irish have this blokes name.


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/06/06/article-1394676-0C49281700000578-652_233x423.jpg