Professor Posted 23 May, 2011 Share Posted 23 May, 2011 Will we have to wait until Saints are back in The Prem before any of our players are rich enough or famous enough to use the courts to keep themselves out of the papers? Maybe we will feel a sense of pride, of having arrived at the top, when we discover one day, that one of our future international stars has had an affair and has used the law to keep it from his wife! Or not. This is a serious matter for what was once thought to be a free country. I know who the Premier League footballer is that had the affair with the lady, Imogen. Probably you know as well. Anyone who doesn't know, and if they can be arsed over something that doesn't matter to any of us the slightest, can find out on the web in minutes. But none of us can exchange messages about it without the possibility that we might be breaking the law by a contempt of court that none of us really know anything about. THAT is what does matter. That our freedom to discuss some run of the mill fact about a bloke sh**ging a girl behind the back of his wife and kids, can became unlawful, just because he's become rich enough on OUR money to get a judge to protect him! Anyone reading this who's having a bit on the side, man or woman, don't think you can use the law to keep it quiet unless you can spare more cash than the average fan will earn in ten years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toofarnorth Posted 23 May, 2011 Share Posted 23 May, 2011 If I find out about player X having an affair with miss Y and choose to publish it then I cant understand how i'll get in toruble. The whole point of the super injunction is that I wouldn't know there was an injunction in place, so how could I be breaching it if i was unaware of its existence. Unless they inform all members of the public that player x is having an affair with miss Y, but you cant tell anyone, then how do i know the super injunction exists to prevent publication of this story. The whole thing is bizarre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 23 May, 2011 Share Posted 23 May, 2011 what is the point...everyone who wants to know who it is does...its all over the internet, actually published in scotland but the english based media cant say... not that any of this matters one bit...who really cares that some poor slapper was having it off with a married man and has come unstuck when trying to cash in on it...... no doubt she will be in all the celebrity reality shows now etc.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channon's Sideburns Posted 23 May, 2011 Share Posted 23 May, 2011 What's more bizarre is that said 'player' is thick enough to think, on the advice of his lawyer that he can sue everyone on Twitter. Look - I said thick and footballer in the same sentence without realising....haha If anyone wanted the evidence of how protected a bubble these idiots live in, there's it right there. Clueless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunrise Posted 23 May, 2011 Share Posted 23 May, 2011 I reckon we should have a poll with the question 'should celebrities be entitled to have superinjunctions' or something worded similar. If the person you mentioned didn't put his tool somewhere it shouldn't have been, then he wouldn't have to get a superinjuction. As you mention prof, it doesn't take a great deal of detective work to establish the name of this person you have mentioned. I feel that the episode relating to this person is going to run and run... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dog Posted 23 May, 2011 Share Posted 23 May, 2011 (edited) I went on Mastermind last week and my specialist subject was Manchester United. John Humphreys said, "Question one: Which Man United player is known as the Welsh Wizard?" I said, "I couldn't say." He said, "Correct, question two..." Edited 23 May, 2011 by Dog Didn't want to name him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chocco boxo Posted 23 May, 2011 Share Posted 23 May, 2011 Surely would it not have been better for him to have come clean leaving the pressure on his "neighbouring rival" to continue keeping his gagging order? Todays news tomorrows chip papers? Will the Barca fans have a banner on Saturday as their papers know who it is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toofarnorth Posted 23 May, 2011 Share Posted 23 May, 2011 Surely would it not have been better for him to have come clean leaving the pressure on his "neighbouring rival" to continue keeping his gagging order? Todays news tomorrows chip papers? Will the Barca fans have a banner on Saturday as their papers know who it is? This. Would have all blown over, but has now been drawn out causing much more agro for him and his famliy. Assume his highly paid legal team have advised this course of action which I guess is making them a fortune. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_clark Posted 23 May, 2011 Share Posted 23 May, 2011 Gone right down in my estimation now. Hope he doesn't get given an OBE or Knighthood, or any of the accolades being mooted for his long standing career. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 23 May, 2011 Share Posted 23 May, 2011 I find the super-injunction thing cuts to the heart of a society and calls into question the whole subject of freedom of speech. I have nothing against legal recourse for defamation or libel, where things are published for public consumption that are incorrect and damaging, but silencing the truth sounds like the action of a dictatorial state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 23 May, 2011 Share Posted 23 May, 2011 Apparently the lawyers for the other premiership player with an injunction, who can only be referred to as TSE, claimed that is was necessary because, if the news of his affair were published, "It would have a devastating effect on his wife and family". Should have thought about that before putting it where it shouldn't have been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danbert Posted 23 May, 2011 Share Posted 23 May, 2011 I find the super-injunction thing cuts to the heart of a society and calls into question the whole subject of freedom of speech. I have nothing against legal recourse for defamation or libel, where things are published for public consumption that are incorrect and damaging, but silencing the truth sounds like the action of a dictatorial state. The real issue is libel tourism - their are newspapers in obscure Eastern European quasi-dictatorships that live in fear of British judges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kev Posted 23 May, 2011 Share Posted 23 May, 2011 Will we have to wait until Saints are back in The Prem before any of our players are rich enough or famous enough to use the courts to keep themselves out of the papers? Rumour has it a recent former Saints manager already has one of these injunctions in operation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Block 18 Posted 23 May, 2011 Share Posted 23 May, 2011 (edited) I know of a celebrity who every evening stops at a crossroads and eats. I cant tell you who it is as he is as he has supper in junctions. I'll get my coat Edited 23 May, 2011 by Block 18 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted 23 May, 2011 Share Posted 23 May, 2011 Gone are the days when a footballer used to play up to a playboy image and parade around the fact he was banging anything that moved. OK, so the missus might get the hump, but if she knows which side her bread is buttered, she'll put up and shut up. But alas, todays pansy players are more concerned with their image rights with the corporates, than their image with the fella in the street. I blame Sky for taking the fun out of footballers philandering and fornication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deano6 Posted 23 May, 2011 Share Posted 23 May, 2011 What's more bizarre is that said 'player' is thick enough to think, on the advice of his lawyer that he can sue everyone on Twitter. Look - I said thick and footballer in the same sentence without realising....haha If anyone wanted the evidence of how protected a bubble these idiots live in, there's it right there. Clueless. No you didn't. Idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 23 May, 2011 Share Posted 23 May, 2011 However much he paid for the "advice" to sue Twitter and demand details of any user who had posted anything relating to his affair, it wasn't anywhere near enough. Absolutely staggering that a lawyer genuinely thought he would have a case there He'd be well-advised now to go down the Andrew Marr route. The majority of people know who it is anyway, and ironically all that is being achieved with this super-injunction is keeping the story IN the press! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 23 May, 2011 Share Posted 23 May, 2011 Poor old Imogen wanted to launch her pop career in Manchester but realised she had already done gigs there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micky Posted 23 May, 2011 Share Posted 23 May, 2011 But where does it stop? Allegedly the players lawyers are looking to take action against the person who tweeted the information. But what of the person that disclosed it to him/her, will they then face legal action. Then there is the person that told the person that told the person that tweeted, and the person that told the person that told the person that that told the person that twe......!!! It's just a totally bizarre that anybody thought that this sort of information could be blanked from the public domain. I'm not against injuctions/super injunctions as such, but if they are made available to the rich and famous then they should equally be made accessable to anybody wanting to protect themselves from information disclosure - price should not be an issue. I think that the player involved has been very poorly advised in this instance, and as a result now looks a complete plonker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 23 May, 2011 Share Posted 23 May, 2011 He's just been named in the House of Commons by a Liberal MP. No link up yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toofarnorth Posted 23 May, 2011 Share Posted 23 May, 2011 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13502854 Our privacy laws could even drive away jobs if this isn't sorted out. Cant see Twitter setting up a HQ here if that leaves them open to law suits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 23 May, 2011 Share Posted 23 May, 2011 Sure did, and then it was broadcast on Sky news, and the anchor also named him, however, some out of touch judge, has just refused to cancel the injunction, these insular bewigged people really need to get in touch with real life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonnyLove Posted 23 May, 2011 Share Posted 23 May, 2011 He's just been named in the House of Commons by a Liberal MP. No link up yet. Who was? If he's welsh then I'm not interested I would however like to know the other one that has not been named or the woman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 23 May, 2011 Share Posted 23 May, 2011 Who was? If he's welsh then I'm not interested I would however like to know the other one that has not been named or the woman So far, it doesn't say. I just assumed it was the Welsh one. UPDATE - it IS the Welsh one. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13503847 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 23 May, 2011 Share Posted 23 May, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 23 May, 2011 Share Posted 23 May, 2011 (edited) Who was? If he's welsh then I'm not interested I would however like to know the other one that has not been named or the woman I cannot suggest that you go to Twitter Search and type in 'footballer TSE', as in doing so you might find out something that has an injunction against it. Edited 23 May, 2011 by badgerx16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 23 May, 2011 Share Posted 23 May, 2011 Gareth Barry lives in Manchester, doesn't he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suewhistle Posted 23 May, 2011 Share Posted 23 May, 2011 This thread has made me laugh. I didn't know who it was before and I couldn't be arsed to look, but I do know now! Surely if he did what he's accused of it can't be libel. Presumably the super injunction is purely on the basis of privacy, but it's the thin end of a very dodgy wedge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mack rill Posted 23 May, 2011 Share Posted 23 May, 2011 Lets hope she was proper good for his sake, Cos she turned out to be feckin expensive, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 23 May, 2011 Share Posted 23 May, 2011 Talksport has just named him on their sports news at 4.30 so I presume the super injuction has been lifted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 23 May, 2011 Share Posted 23 May, 2011 (edited) Talksport has just named him on their sports news at 4.30 so I presume the super injuction has been lifted. An MP named him in the commons this afternoon apparently. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1389841/Ryan-Giggs-named-Commons-footballer-injunction-preventing-details-affair-Imogen-Thomas.html Edited 23 May, 2011 by pedg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperMikey Posted 23 May, 2011 Share Posted 23 May, 2011 An MP named him in the commons this afternoon apparently. I think the House of Commons are allowed to discuss anything, including super injunctions. I would have a lot more respect for Giggsy (f*cking sue me) if he came out and just said it was him and that he apologises. The longer this circus goes on, the more damage it's going to do to his reputation and his family. Plenty of people screw around regardless of marital status, if it was me in his position I wouldn't have bothered with this whole super injunction in the first place tbh. Footballers have done a lot worse in the past, and he's certainly not the first footballer to have had an affair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stu0x Posted 23 May, 2011 Share Posted 23 May, 2011 Gareth Barry lives in Manchester, doesn't he? Yes, yes he does. His team plays at a stadium called Eastlands. In an unrelated note, a poet called TS Eliot wrote a poem called The Wasteland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 23 May, 2011 Share Posted 23 May, 2011 I think the House of Commons are allowed to discuss anything, including super injunctions. Do you think they will discuss the Newcastle manager? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 23 May, 2011 Share Posted 23 May, 2011 BBC now naming Giggs - rather they're reporting that Giggs has been named in the House of Commons. Superinjunction? You're 'avin' a larf! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wurzel Posted 23 May, 2011 Share Posted 23 May, 2011 I guess newspaper/tv editors are instructed by the courts that they can't mention certain things as the court knows how to get hold of them to advise them of such. But no one has been able to explain to me what law I had broken by naming him on twitter if no-one has issued me with an official notification that I can't mention him. In future, if injunctions are to be enforceable, judges will have to notify everybody in the country (as anyone can post on the internet) of the details of the story that they must not mention, so in effect there won't be any need for any of us to mention it as we'll know that everyone else knows anyway. Confused.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 23 May, 2011 Share Posted 23 May, 2011 seems like some MPs have had enough....and fair play to one..has stood up and said he has had enough and said it was Giggs in the commons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 23 May, 2011 Share Posted 23 May, 2011 Interesting - Sky News has been doing this to death but in a lot of detail for over an hour now. Poor old Footballer with an ex injunction, wife & family one would guess as it's no longer about a bit on the side. Been some very good arguments on both sides though. Left Wing & Right Wing.. Think everyone will forget the reason but the implications will be around for a while. Privacy Law and protection. Minefield. What happens when the Internet and hacking enable anyone who dislikes you to hack all your data emails and pictures and post them on a web site in another country so that any can see it, is the extreme worst case scenario. Only people interested would be family work etc - that could really hurt. But it's OK to know who's banging who IF they are in the public eye.. It's only a small step as one journo said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonnyLove Posted 23 May, 2011 Share Posted 23 May, 2011 You could not ask for a better Picture than this. http://twitpic.com/51k8cx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonnyLove Posted 23 May, 2011 Share Posted 23 May, 2011 Oh and if anyone wants more information on anything else http://super-injunction.blogspot.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1976_Child Posted 23 May, 2011 Share Posted 23 May, 2011 Totally agree with the OP. In a sleepy village in the country everyone knows everyone else's business. If you want to play away from home then you had better not do it with the bar maid at the local pub. Before you could rinse your **** all the village would know. So why does some rich bugger like Gyan Riggs have to get the courts to cover up his promiscuity? One law for the rich.... And another thing. If you were to name the player and end up in court the prosecution couldn't even tell you why you were in court because that would validate your assertion. crazy dumb law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 23 May, 2011 Share Posted 23 May, 2011 In an unrelated note, a poet called TS Eliot wrote a poem called The Wasteland. So then who's ****ged the Hyacinth Girl?? two Lily paps and all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 23 May, 2011 Share Posted 23 May, 2011 I would not be surprised if he went for the original super injunction because another player had told him that how he kept his dalliances quiet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1976_Child Posted 23 May, 2011 Share Posted 23 May, 2011 I would not be surprised if he went for the original super injunction because another player had told him that how he kept his dalliances quiet. probably it was his lawyer who coincidentally charge him £500 per hour for his time.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professor Posted 24 May, 2011 Author Share Posted 24 May, 2011 Appreciate this is all over now - probably like Gigg's marriage should be - but it might be interesting to note that this has confirmed what is known as the "Streisand Effect", that a misguided attempt to use the law to keep something quiet can have the opposite outcome and in the extreme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tpbury Posted 25 May, 2011 Share Posted 25 May, 2011 He doesn't give the impression of putting it around. May have been the only time, may have been 'targeted' - who knows? With a face like his, love child of Peter Reid and Peter Beardsley, he'd probably be quite vulnerable to seduction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 25 May, 2011 Share Posted 25 May, 2011 If you saw the Man U interview yesterday when 'Sir' Knob was asked a question about Giggs, then told his aide to ban that reporter on Friday, what a complete tosspot he is, a waste of a Knighthood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jawillwill Posted 25 May, 2011 Share Posted 25 May, 2011 If you saw the Man U interview yesterday when 'Sir' Knob was asked a question about Giggs, then told his aide to ban that reporter on Friday, what a complete tosspot he is, a waste of a Knighthood. I agree. Alex Ferguson has achieved nothing of note in his managerial career and should take much more interest in answering questions about his players' private lives before the biggest game of this (and most other) seasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 25 May, 2011 Share Posted 25 May, 2011 I agree. Alex Ferguson has achieved nothing of note in his managerial career and should take much more interest in answering questions about his players' private lives before the biggest game of this (and most other) seasons. Miss the point did we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holepuncture Posted 25 May, 2011 Share Posted 25 May, 2011 Number 4 - Is this AP and the rumour concerning him and JF's wife? Pards was noticeable quiet upon leaving here, and the forums kept going on about this affair, bust up in the training grounds etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now