Footballer legal action against Twitter

[Korgeta]

Not true you have catherine zeta jones, katherine jenkins and then you have the weslh artist 'Duffy' (aka the apprent love child of Tom Jones...no injunction on that one, because its a joke...apprently)

Anyway you have these and more and....mr coffe is googling and oggling as I speak isn't he?

[Mr. Coffee]

Oh, I already knew about Catherine Zeta Jones (seriously, that woman's ass should be made into a UN Cultural herritage Site or something. That's a booty that could stop a war in its tracks). But the more I'm looking, the more I'm noticing that a lot of very attractive women come out of Wales. Fuck, maybe being "Prince of Wales" ain't such a bad gig after all. Explains why Prince Chuckles is always smiling so much...

[Chirios]

The thing is the sun argues that there was no strong evidence of blackmail only the claim of a possible agenda of blackmail to which the judges agreed there was no concrete evidence to support there was blackmail. Imogen is gagged though on not being able to tell her side of the story meaning we only have the person who enforced the injunction to take into consideration. 'giggs' may have been blackmailed there is no strong evidence of that, the courts should not be used to hide a personal mistake by their own making such as starting an affair.

From the judgement:

Shortly afterwards, still apparently seeking to absolve herself from any responsibility for the newspaper coverage, Ms Thomas sent a message to the Claimant to the effect that one of his friends must have tipped off the newspaper. According to his account, the Claimant knew this to be untrue, since he had never mentioned her to anyone.

The evidence before the court at that stage, therefore, appeared to indicate, rightly or wrongly, that Ms Thomas had arranged for photographs to be taken, having already agreed a payment or payments from the newspaper. Despite that, she was still requesting £100,000 from the Claimant. This was the background against which I had decided that there was ample reason not to trust Ms Thomas. It seemed reasonable, in those circumstances, that the Claimant and his advisers should be excused the need to serve her in advance of the 14 April hearing.

At all events, it seems probable that she had agreed at some point to contribute to the story in The Sun that was published in its issue for 14 April (i.e. prior to the hearing of the injunction application). It is thus ironic that Ms Thomas has subsequently complained of the court's supposed unfairness in according anonymity to the Claimant but not to her. She was already identified, apparently of her own volition, before any application was made to the court. It seemed to me that the Claimant was fully entitled to the protection of anonymity at the time he came before the court on the first occasion – not least for the reasons acknowledged and explained by the Court of Appeal in JIH v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2011] 2 All ER 324 at [40].

The issue has nothing to do with blackmail. If it were, the court would have said so. The issue is the fact that all the evidence points to Imogen Thomas being the one who wanted the information to be leaked, and for the applicant, probably Giggs, wanting the information to remain private. She therefore, through her actions, withdrew her right to privacy, he didn't. That's why he get's protected and she doesn't. Furthermore, she cannot further complain that this damages her reputation, since the damage to her reputation was caused by her own actions in agreeing to provide the Sun with the story, something that the Court had good reason to believe she had done since she had already seen her lawyers about it:

It seems that Ms Thomas had instructed other solicitors for a short time, with whom the Claimant's advisers had made contact on 15 April. On that date she had signed a very brief witness statement accepting that she wished to publish her account of her relationship with the Claimant and that she was in discussion with the Mail on Sunday about that.

[Chirios]

, the courts should not be used to hide a personal mistake by their own making such as starting an affair.

Why the hell not? If there is no public incentive to know about it why shouldn't the courts enforce the Right to Privacy?

[Broomstick]

The guy has two children and didn't want them to be bullied at school should the truth be found out

That's very noble of him. If he felt so protective of his children why didn't he just keep his penis in his pants and thereby avoid the problem of his kids being bullied 'cause dad's cheating on mom entirely?

[Chirios]

The guy has two children and didn't want them to be bullied at school should the truth be found out

That's very noble of him. If he felt so protective of his children why didn't he just keep his penis in his pants and thereby avoid the problem of his kids being bullied 'cause dad's cheating on mom entirely?

And why should peoples dislike of having affairs be a reason to publish that information publicly?

[Wing Commander MAD]

What is the likelyhood of a common person recieving such treatment to cover up their marrital infidelity/attempt to hide it from public knowledge? Speaking as an American, this seems like an abuse of a law by someone wealthy/influential in a way that while technically legitimate, would seem to trivialize why such a law was drafted and what it was meant to protect.

[Chirios]

What is the likelyhood of a common person recieving such treatment to cover up their marrital infidelity/attempt to hide it from public knowledge? Speaking as an American, this seems like an abuse of a law by someone wealthy/influential in a way that while technically legitimate, would seem to trivialize why such a law was drafted and what it was meant to protect.

The ability to create these kinds of gagging orders was deliberately created to protect the rich and famous. And even if it wasn't, what's the difference? Let's be honest here, the only reason people don't like that this happens is because these people are rich. No, it's unlikely that a common person would receive such treatment, but it's also unlikely that a common person would ever be put in a situation whereby the papers would be interested in what they do; and thus have to deal with the horrible treatment that the papparazi often put them through. It's a false analogy.

[Broomstick]

The guy has two children and didn't want them to be bullied at school should the truth be found out

That's very noble of him. If he felt so protective of his children why didn't he just keep his penis in his pants and thereby avoid the problem of his kids being bullied 'cause dad's cheating on mom entirely?

And why should peoples dislike of having affairs be a reason to publish that information publicly?

Just because it's not splashed across international headlines does not mean the common people who have affairs keep it secret - locally, who is fucking whom outside of marriage gets around.

Personally, I don't care - it's between those involved, which doesn't include me. But really, if one doesn't want people to talk about fucking around on one's mate then don't do it. I understand temptation, but don't do it.

The ability to create these kinds of gagging orders was deliberately created to protect the rich and famous. And even if it wasn't, what's the difference? Let's be honest here, the only reason people don't like that this happens is because these people are rich. No, it's unlikely that a common person would receive such treatment, but it's also unlikely that a common person would ever be put in a situation whereby the papers would be interested in what they do; and thus have to deal with the horrible treatment that the papparazi often put them through. It's a false analogy.

^ This.

[Chirios]

Personally, I don't care - it's between those involved, which doesn't include me. But really, if one doesn't want people to talk about fucking around on one's mate then don't do it. I understand temptation, but don't do it.

That's true, but given that some 40% of people apparently have had affairs it's unlikely.

Secondly, people are talking about it, the question is whether or not that should allow people to run up to his front door, start taking pictures of his family while they're trying to eat food, and then run and bitch to the cops when he rightfully sparks them the fuck out.

[Broomstick]

That means 60% of people have not had affairs. Clearly, most of the human race can keep their flies zipped.

You are correct, it does not give the papparazzi the right to harass the family. Doesn't the UK have harassment and stalker laws?

[Wing Commander MAD]

What is the likelyhood of a common person recieving such treatment to cover up their marrital infidelity/attempt to hide it from public knowledge? Speaking as an American, this seems like an abuse of a law by someone wealthy/influential in a way that while technically legitimate, would seem to trivialize why such a law was drafted and what it was meant to protect.

The ability to create these kinds of gagging orders was deliberately created to protect the rich and famous. And even if it wasn't, what's the difference? Let's be honest here, the only reason people don't like that this happens is because these people are rich. No, it's unlikely that a common person would receive such treatment, but it's also unlikely that a common person would ever be put in a situation whereby the papers would be interested in what they do; and thus have to deal with the horrible treatment that the papparazi often put them through. It's a false analogy.

Thats what I get for assuming a law has a halfways decent purpose for existing. I thought you Europeans were supposed to be more enlightened about such things? I can get my fill of stories of rich and famous people using laws made soley for their benefit (even if the common folk could theoretically benefit from such a law) on this side of the Atlantic, no need for you guys to export yours.

[Chirios]

Thats what I get for assuming a law has a halfways decent purpose for existing. I thought you Europeans were supposed to be more enlightened about such things? I can get my fill of stories of rich and famous people using laws made soley for their benefit (even if the common folk could theoretically benefit from such a law) on this side of the Atlantic, no need for you guys to export yours.

I explained it wrong.

The Right to Private and Family Life was encoded into English law under section 6 (I believe) of the Human Rights Act 1998, which applies to all citizens. But as a result of several incidents involving harassment by the tabloid media, the courts allowed private individuals to create gagging orders on the media, where there was no public interest in the story and where the individual had not voluntarily waived their Right to Private and Family Life in that respect. And once again I ask: Why the Hell Not? Why is allowing people the right to keep their private lives private a bad thing?

And before it is mentioned the issue of "the public interest" already covers politicians who impregnate their secretaries or whatever, and the law already covers incidents where famous people have committed criminal acts, so I ask again, Why the Hell Not?

[Wing Commander MAD]

I have nothing against people wanting to keep their private lives confidential. I merely dislike people using celebrity and/or wealth to exert, or seeming to exert, undue influence legally compared to what the common man can in practice. Hence, my questioning weather the average citizen could practically make use of such laws. If the government can be bothered to intervene on behalf of someone important or wealthy, it should also do the same for someone unimportant or poor to maintain the ideal of equality before the law.

[DaveJB]

We had a mess like this last year, only it involved a team manager who was having some "personal therapy" sessions at a brothel. There were a lot of thinly veiled accusations in the press and on the internet that Phil Brown was the culprit, but it actually turned out to be Avram Grant.

Whoever the actual guilty party is, he should come out if only to avoid other, potentially innocent players getting their name dragged through the mud as a result of this farce.

[Chirios]

I have nothing against people wanting to keep their private lives confidential. I merely dislike people using celebrity and/or wealth to exert, or seeming to exert, undue influence legally compared to what the common man can in practice. Hence, my questioning weather the average citizen could practically make use of such laws. If the government can be bothered to intervene on behalf of someone important or wealthy, it should also do the same for someone unimportant or poor to maintain the ideal of equality before the law.

I suppose there's nothing in the statute that doesn't allow a common person to make use of such a law, but in practice it would be highly unlikely. A common person wouldn't be targeted by the papers in such a manner, and if they were, it's unlikely that they could get a gagging order ordered before it went to print, and once it's in print gagging orders aren't allowed to be used.

That doesn't apply in this case, because the proceedings started before the information was leaked over the internet.

There was a case a few years ago about a woman who blogged anonymously about her sex life over the internet. The papers knew that she would probably have ordered a gagging order if she had known about the upcoming editorial about her; so they published the information without telling her.

[Minischoles]

The guy has two children and didn't want them to be bullied at school should the truth be found out

That's very noble of him. If he felt so protective of his children why didn't he just keep his penis in his pants and thereby avoid the problem of his kids being bullied 'cause dad's cheating on mom entirely?

He's a premiership footballer, the idea of keeping his dick in his pants doesn't occur to him. The silly fuckers usually marry or date pretty attractive women, then cheat anyway. Take Ashley Cole who was married to Cheryl Cole and still cheated on her at least twice. Wayne Rooney - who looks like Shrek - has cheated on his wife, one time with a gray haired prostitute.

I'm very much against these injunctions and super-injunctions, it's just another way for them to do whatever the hell they like and get away with it, without being caught by their spouses or significant others. If they want to sleep around, don't get married - I could understand that, you're a premiership footballer getting paid obscene sums of money each week, then sure go and stick it in anything with 2 legs, but don't act like the papers shouldn't be allowed to say anything about it.

[thejester]

Mate there would be thousands of professional footballers in England alone, I'd be surprised if the 40/60 split cited above was any different for them. I would have thought the fact you so easily assume footballer = cheater is an argument in favour of an injunction.

And even if we take no sympathy for Giggs - why punish his children? Going out on a limb here but I doubt this is a cynical excuse from Giggs, IIRC he suffered pretty serious racial bullying as a child in Wales because his old man was from the Windies.

[Psychic_Sandwich]

I have nothing against people wanting to keep their private lives confidential. I merely dislike people using celebrity and/or wealth to exert, or seeming to exert, undue influence legally compared to what the common man can in practice. Hence, my questioning weather the average citizen could practically make use of such laws. If the government can be bothered to intervene on behalf of someone important or wealthy, it should also do the same for someone unimportant or poor to maintain the ideal of equality before the law.

There's absolutely nothing stopping the average person making use of the law to do the same thing, but it's very unlikely that they would ever need to in the first place. The reason this sort of thing usually involves celebrities is that they're the major group of people that actually have a need to make use of a law that actually applies to everybody. If Joe Bloggs did something that made him instantly famous and the press started hounding him and his family at his house, he could get a gag order against them if he wanted to as well.

[Falarica]

Ryan Giggs named by MP as injunction footballer

A married footballer named on Twitter as having an injunction over an alleged affair with a reality TV star has been named in Parliament by Lib Dem MP John Hemming as Ryan Giggs.

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.

Earlier the High Court again ruled that the injunction should not be lifted.

Parliamentary privilege protects MPs and peers from prosecution for statements made in the House of Commons or House of Lords.

Addressing MPs, Mr Hemming said: "Mr Speaker, with about 75,000 people having named Ryan Giggs it is obviously impracticable to imprison them all."

In court, Mr Justice Eady rejected a fresh application by Sun publisher News Group Newspapers to discharge the privacy injunction.

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."

Lib Dem MP John Hemming was fully protected by parliamentary privilege. Media organisations have only qualified privilege which means they do not have an absolute right to report what an MP says in Parliament.

In reality though once an MP says something in Parliament it is very difficult to stop that becoming widely known.

News organisations were torn between their duty to observe a court order and their obligation to viewers, listeners and readers.

Once some news organisations started publishing Ryan Giggs's name, other news organisations agreed that it would be unrealistic to pretend that the injunction had any purpose or would be maintained beyond the afternoon.

On Sunday, a Scottish paper named Mr Giggs as being the footballer identified on Twitter.

The Attorney General Dominic Grieve told the Commons the prime minister had asked for a joint committee of peers and MPs to investigate the use of privacy orders.

David Cameron has written a letter to John Whittingdale, chairman of the Commons culture committee, recommending the setting up of a new body.

Mr Whittingdale told the Commons developments in this area were "moving very rapidly".

"You virtually need to be living in an igloo not to know the identity of at least one of the premiership footballers.

"We are in danger of making the law look like an ass."

Mr Cameron told ITV1's Daybreak banning newspapers from naming such stars while the information was widely available on the internet was both "unsustainable" and "unfair".

In another case brought by a separate footballer, known to the court as TSE, a High Court judge ruled on Monday that comments on Twitter about the private life of a famous person did not mean there should be no injunction preventing newspapers from publishing stories about him.

BBC News

Cat's out of the bag.

EDIT: Added BBC News to the quote

[Zaune]

Don't want to drag us off topic here, but bloody hell, Giggs is still playing? I thought he'd retired or died of a cocaine overdose years ago.

[DaveJB]

No, Giggs has always been thought of as one of the cleaner-living players, which is why this whole thing is such a shock. And him still playing at 37 is nothing; Stanley Matthews continued to play at the highest level until shortly after he turned 50.

[Zaune]

Fair enough then. It was just a bit jarring to hear about someone who was an up-and-coming player when I was in primary school still going strong almost twenty years later.

[Chirios]

Fair enough then. It was just a bit jarring to hear about someone who was an up-and-coming player when I was in primary school still going strong almost twenty years later.

Let's be fair, we are talking about Giggs here. He's one of the best players alive.

[Jon]

I don't like these injunction laws at all, I'm no fan of the celebrity worshipping, gossip chasing culture that has seen this become one of the biggest news stories of the year [in the UK], giving Twitter record traffic spikes [in the UK], but if someone lives their life and makes their living in the public eye, in a country with the aforementioned obsessions, they should take care not to get involved in a situation that could blow up in their face, or just be prepared to deal with the consequences.