Superinjunctions.

[Dave B]

Married premiership footballer **** ***** had an affair with Big Brother contestant Imogen Thomas. That is a fact. You could find out his identity within seconds using a search engine, by reading Twitter, or buying yesterday's Scottish Herald or any of several overseas newspapers.

As I'm in England, posting on an English website, I can't name this footballer (and neither should you unless you want Mark exposed to potential legal action!)

A senior judge has called for everybody who has name him to be prosecuted - good luck with tracking down and arresting literally hundreds of thousands of Twitter users - showing just how out of touch the judiciary is on this matter.

Now you may argue, with some justification I might add, that nobody much cares that a footballer and a slapper got all jiggy jiggy. It's a pretty regular occurrance. Nor might you care that a respected actor allegedly likes a bit of hanky spanky. Outside of the world of Daily Star headline writers these things don't really matter.

But what of the case of Trafigura (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/07/trafigura-lawsuit-court-documents), the oil company which tried to supress news of it dumping toxic waste? They even tried to block discussions of the case in Parliament. That was a genuine public interest matter which deserved to be in the public domain. Or that of Fred Goodwin (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8524845/Sir-Fred-Goodwin-affair-with-colleague-super-injunction-lifted-by-High-Court.html), the former RBS head who fiddled while his company folded around him, require a taxpayer bailout to prevent its total collapse?

And what of the wider implications, that the wealthy can buy justice denied to the rest of us? If my local rag wanted to run a scandalous story about me, I certainly couldn't afford to engage Carter Ruck to seek a High Court injuction.

My favourite part of all this is Lord Judge (great name), the lord chief justice, who said that people trust the mainstream media more than social media. I don't. Twitter is full of lies and BS, but it's self-policing - the wheat gets seperated from the chaff pretty quickly. Compare and contrast to Britain's redtops which print lie after lie and only issue retractions (weeks later, in tiny print buried away on page 9) when they know they've been exposed. Or tap phones and hack voicemails on an industrial scale, paying off their victims rather than facing criminal charges. I know which one I'd rather trust.

[Mark]

As Dave said, please DO NOT mention the name here.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Married premiership footballer **** ***** had an affair with Big Brother contestant Imogen Thomas. That is a fact. You could find out his identity within seconds using a search engine, by reading Twitter, or buying yesterday's Scottish Herald or any of several overseas newspapers.

As I'm in England, posting on an English website, I can't name this footballer (and neither should you unless you want Mark exposed to potential legal action!)

I thought this was a French website?

[Mark]

I thought this was a French website?

The servers are located in Paris, but as I own the forums and I'm in England that makes me (and the forums) subject to English law.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

The servers are located in Paris, but as I own the forums and I'm in England that makes me (and the forums) subject to English law.

Well if the authorities come after you run up the A1 to the border? :p

[Dave B]

And isn't that the stupid thing? I know his name, you know his name, anybody who doesn't could find out within seconds; and yet none of us can post it.

A paragraph I missed out is the argument that a superinjunction is now totally counterproductive. Few people would have known or cared about this alleged affair but for the hamfisted attempt to keep it secret. By trying to buy secrecy, this person and his lawyers have pretty much guaranteed maximum publicity. I would make an "own goal" joke, but fear the penalty. Ooops. :disturb:

[MrJan]

Incidentally I think that the...for argument's sake let's call the chap deleted...anyway the deleted... case isn't actually a superinjunction as the media can say that an injunction exists. The other chap, let's call him deleted..., IS a superinjunction as we weren't supposed to be aware that the gagging order even existed.

It's ironic that the second bloke was leaked about a week ago when Giles Coren made some comments on Twitter and no one really paid attention. It was only when said bloke brought proceedings against Coren that people took note.

[Dave B]

I think the former case was orginally a superinjunction but once it became common knowledge that such an order existed the press were able to comment on its existance, if not its content. Maybe.

[Mark]

When I said I didn't want anyone named here I meant it. That includes using sound alike names, subtle hints or whatever else you might think is a smart way of getting around it.

[MrJan]

Oops, sorry about that *red faced carol smilie*

[Mark]

It's ironic that the second bloke was leaked about a week ago when Giles Coren made some comments on Twitter and no one really paid attention. It was only when said bloke brought proceedings against Coren that people took note.

Which is what so often happens. A paper publishes a story which nobody takes any notice of and nobody cares about. Until the person involves sues the newspaper then all the details of the accusation get on the TV news, websites, everywhere!

[Sonic]

Poor Mark. He must be having a heart attack every time someone posts on this thread :D

*places hand on chest* I sonic, swear not to reveal the identity of Mr Football star on MSF :)

[MrJan]

Poor Mark. He must be having a heart attack every time someone posts on this thread :D


Which just shows how ridiculous it all is. People are on a knife edge because some rich t**t couldn't keep it in his pants and is subsequently worried about his image. One of my mates summed it up quite well on twitter: "Cant help but imagine Mr X suing twitter is like a mad old man trying to fight an imaginary swarm of bees in his garden with a spade".

I think it's time that he just accepted that we all know the truth and let go, the cat isn't going back in the bag now.

[MrJan]

The one I accidently killed on Saturday certainly isn't. Poor little blighter. :(

Little tip, blame curiosity.

[ShiftingGears]

Can I buy a vowel?

[Sonic]

can i buy a vowel?

rofl! :d

[Dave B]

Lib Dem MP John Hemmings has named the footballer in Parliament. Several publications, and Sky News, are now reporting this. I shall refrain from reproducing the name here for the moment, but it's safe to say the injunction is now utterly worthless - expect to see the player on the front page of most of tomorrow's papers.

As The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2011/may/23/politics-live-blog)says, "Forget about ---- -----. What's really interesting about this is that we are witnessing a no-holds-barred battle between parliament and the judiciary over privacy."

This was never about a footballer not being able to control his balls, this whole affair (pun intended) highlights just how hopeless the law is at keeping pace with modern communications.

[Mark]

Lib Dem MP John Hemmings has named the footballer in Parliament. Several publications, and Sky News, are now reporting this. I shall refrain from reproducing the name here for the moment, but it's safe to say the injunction is now utterly worthless - expect to see the player on the front page of most of tomorrow's papers.

And he'll get far more publicity than if he had not taken the injunction. Why should our courts have to deal with this kind of nonsense?!

[Dave B]

As it stands, I can quite happily say that Sky News and BBC News are reporting that an MP has named Ryan Giggs. This is factually accurate and a matter of public record, as anybody near a television can verify.

What I still cannot do, for example, is suggest that a particular footballer has had an affair - this is still subject to the original injunction. Crazy, no? :eek:

[MrJan]

Seems like the naming of him in court has opened the floodgates as the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13503847) are happy enough to break cover. I'm shocked to find out who it is, I had no idea at all ;)

[Daniel]

The funniest thing about this whole super injunction malarkey was finding out that Andrew Marr had an affair. I bet the woman was embarassed about that :D

[Mark]

Who the hell is Ryan Giggs?! :p

[MrJan]

Who the hell is Ryan Giggs?! :p

This guy: http://twitpic.com/51k8cx

[Robinho]

and more importantly, what does "CTB" stand for?

i notice the websites are able to state that Ryan Giggs has been named as the person that was named in Twitter posts, in connection with the super injunction stories, in which a married premiership footballer is supposed to have had an affair woth Imogen Thomas.

I wonder if the Man Utd club shop will do a roaring trade in shirts with CTB printed on the back? I also hear tha the Blackpool fans were chanting CTB everytime Giggs touched the ball at the weekend, I assume they have also made a connection that so far has not quite been made completley in the media?!

[Brown, Jon Brow]

OMG it was Ryan Giggs who was accused according to the news? Well blow me down, I must have been the only one who didn't know. :D

I didn't. I changed my avatar to celebrate Man Utd winning the league.

[Sonic]

I bet when he took out this super injunction he didn't 'Imogen' it would get this big and create more publicity as a result. :eek:

I see what you did there and I like it.

[Rollo]

I'd like to take out a superinjuction "against the world" and make sure that details, pictures and his name are never published again.

If there is a superinjuction covering (superinjuction) then I hope that he has also had all proceeds from all advertising contracts confiscated, because that would also be technically be breaking the superinjuction.

[Mark]

It does open up the whole question again of sites with user generated content. I mean people come onto the forum and make posts, contrary to what some people seem to think neither I nor the moderators read the posts before they are published, nor do we read even a fraction of the posts that do appear on the forum - that would be very time consuming and quite tedious!

Ultimately I believe that if a user posts content then it's up to them to make sure it's legal. But how much are the likes of myself liable for what the users post on the site? Certainly the precedent up until now is that owners are not liable, until they are told about it and then become liable if no action is taken.

[harsha]

Can i say his name now :cheese:

[Rollo]

Can i say his name now :cheese:

Ryan Giggs.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/video/2011/may/23/superinjunction-ryan-giggs

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/section/12
Section 12
(4)The court must have particular regard to the importance of the Convention right to freedom of expression and, where the proceedings relate to material which the respondent claims, or which appears to the court, to be journalistic, literary or artistic material (or to conduct connected with such material), to—
(a)the extent to which—
(i)the material has, or is about to, become available to the public;

It has been said in Parliament; therefore has been published in Hansard; therefore has become and been made available to the public.
Actually to be perfectly honest, it has been published knowledge since 14th April because Ms Thomas sold her story to The Sun. The right to sue in Common Law only extends as far as the parties who breached the orders, namely Ms Thomas and News Group Newspapers Ltd.

I personally fail to see how you can put an enforceable supression order on something which has already leaked through the media and the parliament; neither do the courts:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/1232.html
In particular, once it has entered what is usually called the public domain (which means no more than that the information in question is so generally accessible that, in all the circumstances, it cannot be regarded as confidential) then, as a general rule, the principle of confidentiality can have no application to it.

You can say Ryan Giggs name now, and you could have legally done it more than a month ago.

[Dave B]

And what about a certain deleted? Can I name him?

Anyone fancy a deleted? :p

[Mark]

No! :p

[Sonic]

^^^

No! Not Ainsley Harriott! He doesn't seem the type ;)

[MrJan]

What about the actor that was accused of putting things up his bum? Can we mention him?

[Mark]

The test is if it appears on the BBC website, if yes, you can post it, otherwise no!

[Dave B]

Not a great test: yesterday they were about 40 mins behind The Guardian and Sky News, no doubt triple checking with lawyers.

[Rollo]

What about the actor that was accused of putting things up his bum? Can we mention him?

Johnny Vegas? He openly admitted it with youghurt on an episode of QI. Then again that was probably for comedic effect.

[MrJan]

The test is if it appears on the BBC website, if yes, you can post it, otherwise no!

Aww, you're no fun when you're scared of going to prison :p : :D

[Dave B]

Talking of the BBC, as we were a while back, here's there policy on blog comments:



As it stands as I write this, on the BBC website, you can say that the footballer who had an injunction in place regarding an alleged affair with Imogen Thomas, was named in Parliament as being Ryan Giggs. But the word 'alleged' is important - any statement that for example an affair, or blackmail took place is likely to result in your comment being removed due to the potential for defamation which the BBC - or indeed you - may not have sufficient proof to defend. In addition as the injunction has still not been lifted we are still technically bound by its provisions. However, we have taken the view that we are able to report the parliamentary proceedings.


There's a lot more at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2011/05/moderation_and_superinjunction.html

[GridGirl]

Maybe it's just me but I found the most ironic thing about the Ryan Giggs superinjunction saga was that that it was partly do do with protecting his children. His daughter is called Liberty. As Shakespeare once said: What is in a name?

[BDunnell]

So much of the debate on this misses the point. Most of the stories concern, to put it bluntly, embarrassing shagging. This is hardly earth-shattering stuff, though there is one supposed story in which the prominent individual involved is the most enormous hypocrite for taking out the injunction, and another in which the person concerned is believed to be hushing up allegations of potentially criminal behaviour. Both of these are more serious. But alongside this, there is the use of such injunctions for more sinister purposes, as the oil company Trafigura attempted to do when stories emerged of its dumping of toxic waste. This, rather than the private lives of footballers and other sundry celebrities, is the most important issue at stake — although I would question whether it is morally right to potentially fine people large sums or even send them to prison for saying in public that 'x' footballer bonked 'y' reality TV star.

[BDunnell]

Oh, and if anyone is in any doubt as to the extent to which the point is being missed, one only has to read this comment piece by the appalling Alastair Campbell, a man whose moralising is hard to take on any subject, as reproduced by the Guardian, in which he dismisses the fuss over super-injunctions as being merely about 'sex and celebs'. Of course, there is a section of the press about which this is entirely true. But I don't think Private Eye, for one, can be lumped in with the tabloids.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/organgrinder/2011/may/24/phone-hacking-superinjunctions