Domain Manage

Super Injunction, who is this footballer?

Discussion in 'General Board' started by Retired_member41, May 21, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Retired_member41

    Retired_member41 Retired Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2010
    Posts:
    3,443
    Likes Received:
    55
    Thank you blossom, great twitter account to read lol
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2011
  2. Domain Forum

    Acorn Domains Elite Member

    Joined:
    1999
    Messages:
    Many
    Likes Received:
    Lots
     
  3. Blossom

    Blossom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2010
    Posts:
    1,395
    Likes Received:
    55
  4. Retired_member41

    Retired_member41 Retired Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2010
    Posts:
    3,443
    Likes Received:
    55
    Posted thanks above Blossom :)

    While I am on, and i know there are some clever legal brains on here, so a question.

    Say in this case where the footballer took out a super injunction.

    For it to be legal, surely the court or footballer would have to inform every media in the UK so they could block any publication.

    And say someone did post that he had an affair, surely they cant prosecute you, as a court would say well you did, and they are not telling lies, so no case?

    Maybe im missing something.
     
  5. wb United Kingdom

    wb Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2009
    Posts:
    2,072
    Likes Received:
    34
  6. newguy United Kingdom

    newguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2009
    Posts:
    2,436
    Likes Received:
    20
    I think twitter caved in previously, handing the US government details of people linked to wikileaks. In this particular case, I have my doubts about whether they'll bother handing over the details.
     
  7. doodlebug United Kingdom

    doodlebug Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2007
    Posts:
    5,202
    Likes Received:
    49
    I hope it is Giggsy, I use to goto school with his misses and always had my eye on her but never said anything to her.

    Maybe now I'm in with a chance ;)
     
  8. Aegean

    Aegean Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2011
    Posts:
    752
    Likes Received:
    16
    The court don't have to inform anyone, it doesn't work like that. It's up to the media to abide by the law. Ignorance is not an excuse for breaking a legal injunction. To make things easier the courts may inform someone like the Press Association, but they're certainly not obligated to.
     
  9. JMOT

    JMOT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2007
    Posts:
    1,012
    Likes Received:
    23
    So it looks like this so called star is taking twitter to court to gain the personal details of the people who shared/leaked his name and anyone who has spread the details...

    Looks like a lot of people are going to be getting sued.
     
  10. cc976a

    cc976a Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2007
    Posts:
    1,810
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trouble is this is where it is getting a bit silly - him and his lawyers should just lay low for a while. Do a search on Yahoo and it's not just Twitter, there are hundreds or thousands if sites naming him. It obviously started somewhere but they can't be sure it was Twitter.

    With social media and a piece of gossip spreading more quicker than Gary Linekar after a bag of crisps, in today's world 'super injuctions' just won't work.

    It would have been better to admit it, apologise and get on with it. Would have gone away by now. Apparently wifey already knows.

    Prolonging it and then going after people's favourite Twitter isn't going to do him much good
     
  11. wb United Kingdom

    wb Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2009
    Posts:
    2,072
    Likes Received:
    34
    Super injunctions cost a lot of money. If the footballer has spent five or six figures getting one, they aren't going to be too happy that someone has broken it.

    As far as I know they are only intended for a very small number of cases where it is likely that minimal people already knew (so to stop it from getting spread any further).
     
  12. websaway United Kingdom

    websaway Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2007
    Posts:
    4,707
    Likes Received:
    84
    Going to sue people who made him a fortune, the best footballer that ever lived, I don't know who's advising him but I'd sack them.
     
  13. Frog

    Frog Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2010
    Posts:
    620
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse, but if I am unsure if something is legal or not I could call the police station and ask them and no doubt they'll tell me. If they won't/can't I could certainly hire a solicitor and they would.

    Supposing I hear a rumour that say (for example) Ryan Giggs had an affair and I write a blog post about it, how could I possibly know that there was an injunction banning anyone writing about that?

    There is no realistic way anyone could be punished for breaking an injuction that they never knew existed (or could reasonably have been expected to know existed) in the first place.
     
  14. Frog

    Frog Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2010
    Posts:
    620
    Likes Received:
    18
    From a bbc article (emphasis mine):

     
  15. wb United Kingdom

    wb Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2009
    Posts:
    2,072
    Likes Received:
    34
    As in my previous post, I'm pretty sure super injunctions are intended for when only a small number of people actually know the details. So if I'm thinking correctly, the injunction is to stop those people in their tracks so it can't go any further (not as a reactive measure once everyone knows and to stop it getting published, else it wouldn't be granted).
     
  16. cc976a

    cc976a Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2007
    Posts:
    1,810
    Likes Received:
    7
    In this day and age nothing can remain secret for long

    The more mystery surrounds something the more people spend wanting to know. Far more people are talking about it and him since the super injunction - tad counter productive.

    The trouble is this guy had an affair with a women, she took the media flack initially and he got away scot free. I don't necessarily agree that everything someone does should be in the public domain. He's a footballer - it's not like what he's done is going to harm the public or his profession (although look at Rooney in the World Cup!!) - but one shouldn't be left to face the music whilst the other can pay to keep it all quiet.

    Obviously he's trying to prosecute the source, the one of the select that new. Maybe he already knows and wants evidence - you don't know what goes on behind closed doors, but going agains one of the biggest tabloids in the UK isn't smart. They're really going to make him suffer!
     
  17. Frog

    Frog Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2010
    Posts:
    620
    Likes Received:
    18
    Definitely agree with that... if he had been named in all the papers on day 1 of this story it'd all be long forgotten already!
     
  18. theonemanyuri

    theonemanyuri Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2010
    Posts:
    556
    Likes Received:
    2
    I can see exactly why Ryan Giggs would want to keep an affair secret, he's got an otherwise unblemished career and reputation, I'm not aware of him being in any scandals previously..?

    Who sets an injunction anyway and who is it applied to? If you were a freeman on the land surely you could release these details within the law..?
     
  19. droid United Kingdom

    droid Active Member

    Joined:
    May 2007
    Posts:
    233
    Likes Received:
    3
    I just feel sorry that Imogen Thomas can be accused of all sorts and is not able to defend herself or put forward her side of the story. (Saying that she is going to be minted if/when the injunction gets dropped)

    Not fair on the other footballers who have been named as the suspected party either.

    That said I'm surprised this thread is still here considering some of the content.

    Gary
     
  20. willbon United Kingdom

    willbon Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    447
    Likes Received:
    8
    The outcome has definitely got to be that super-injunctions cannot work in a society that is bound with instant information access through the internet - the law needs to catch up!

    Amazing isn't it - we have laws that protect us from other people lying about us and now we have laws stopping people telling the truth about us. Now we just need a law stopping us communicating all together!

    PS - If the (totally unenforceable) needs of the Premiership footballer are upheld and Twitter users are to be sent to court, then whoever 'outs' that particular footballer ... in this thread...will have a knock on the door!
     
  21. Frog

    Frog Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2010
    Posts:
    620
    Likes Received:
    18
    See you in court then Ryan Giggs :D
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page