Super Injunction, who is this footballer?

[Retired_member41]

Thank you blossom, great twitter account to read lol

 

[Blossom]

The Imogen Thomas thing? All here: https://twitter.com/#!/injunctionsuper

 

[Retired_member41]

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.

 

[wb]

You will soon find out how the legal proceedings will go, as Twitter are getting sued.

Here's a link to the law firm's blog (was only published hours ago):

http://charlesrussell.wordpress.com/2011/05/20/footballer-ctb-is-suing-twitter/

Will be a very interesting case to follow.

 

[newguy]

You will soon find out how the legal proceedings will go, as Twitter are getting sued.

Here's a link to the law firm's blog (was only published hours ago):

http://charlesrussell.wordpress.com/2011/05/20/footballer-ctb-is-suing-twitter/

Will be a very interesting case to follow.

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.

 

[doodlebug]

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

 

[Aegean]

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.

Maybe im missing something.

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.

 

[JMOT]

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.

 

[cc976a]

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

 

[wb]

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).

 

[websaway]

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.

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.

 

[Frog]

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.

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.

 

[Frog]

From a bbc article (emphasis mine):

The BBC legal correspondent Clive Coleman adds that at the gagging order hearing, lawyers for the footballer applied to see e-mails sent by the Sun columnist Kelvin MacKenzie. They applied because MacKenzie said, on the BBC's Today programme, that he sometimes breaks injunctions and sends details to readers. MacKenzie is not a party to the case, but if the application is granted and the e-mails show him to be flouting injunctions he knew about, then he would be in contempt of court.

 

[wb]

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).

 

[cc976a]

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!

 

[Frog]

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.

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!

 

[theonemanyuri]

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..?

 

[droid]

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

 

[willbon]

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!

 

[Frog]

See you in court then Ryan Giggs