Jump to content

  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Scottish newspaper reveals injunction f*****ller

Staniola

By Staniola,
in GF - General Forum

 Share

Recommended Posts

Staniola Contributor

Staniola

Posted
Posted

Scottish newspaper identifies injunction footballerPaper publishes 'censored' picture on front page, and attorney general reportedly looking into separate journalist's tweets

 

 

Share154 Adam Gabbatt and Matthew Taylor guardian.co.uk, Sunday 22 May 2011 12.41 BST Article history

Imogen Thomas's alleged former lover has been unmasked by a Scottish newspaper. Photograph: Ian Nicholson/PA

The storm over the use of privacy injunctions to suppress publication of celebrity sexual indiscretions has escalated, with a Scottish newspaper revealing the identity of a footballer who allegedly had an affair with the model Imogen Thomas.

 

Separately, the attorney general is reported to be considering a criminal prosecution against a British journalist who allegedly used Twitter to name a different footballer who has also taken out a privacy injunction.

 

The Scottish newspaper, which the Guardian cannot name for legal reasons, devoted its front page to a large picture of the footballer's face, with a black band across his eyes and the word "censored" in capital letters. The player is easily recognisable.

 

Below the picture is the text: "Everyone knows that this is the footballer accused of using the courts to keep allegations of a sexual affair secret. But we weren't supposed to tell you that ..."

 

In its editorial column, the newspaper wrote: "Today we identify the footballer whose name has been linked to a court superinjunction by thousands of postings on Twitter. Why? Because we believe it is unsustainable that the law can be used to prevent newspapers from publishing information that readers can access on the internet at the click of a mouse.

 

"Because we believe it unfair that the law can not only be used to prevent the publication of information which may be in the public interest but also to prevent any mention of such a court order. The so-called superinjunction holds no legal force in Scotland where a separate court order is needed. We should point out immediately that we are not accusing the footballer of any misdeed. Whether the allegations against him are true or not has no relevance to this debate."

 

Neither the front page or the editorial have been published on the newspaper's website.

 

On Friday it emerged that the high court had granted a search order against Twitter, in an attempt to compel it to identify those who had named the same footballer.

 

The lawsuit lists the defendants as "Twitter Inc and persons unknown". The "persons unknown" are described as those "responsible for the publication of information on the Twitter accounts".

 

Lawyers have applied for a court order that could force Twitter to hand over the name, email address and IP address of the person behind each account.

 

Twitter has said it is unable to comment on the case against it. The order requires Twitter to provide the information within seven days, or within the appropriate time required by the law in California, where it is based.

 

In a separate development, the attorney general, Dominic Grieve, is reportedly considering criminal prosecution against a journalist who allegedly used Twitter to name a different footballer who had taken out a privacy injunction.

 

The Mail on Sunday reported that the privacy judge Mr Justice Tugendhat had passed the case to the attorney general. The journalist is believed to write for a prominent British newspaper, but the breach relates to information posted on his personal Twitter account.

 

The tweets, which have since been deleted, are believed to have been published about 10 days ago, during a football match. The Guardian cannot reveal the content of the posts for legal reasons.

 

The Mail said it had approached the journalist outside his home in London. "Basically at this point I can't say anything at all because it might be in contempt of court. I'd say what I think, but if it's a possibility of me [going to prison] ...," he told the newspaper.

 

"And there was a quote I noticed from the lawyers today, Schillings, saying, 'No one's going to go to prison over this', but we don't know that. Because it could be contempt of court, I think it would be stupid to say anything at all."

 

Schillings are believed to represent the player named in the journalist's tweets.

 

 

Anyone know which paper it was?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Elmyn Noos Grand Master

Elmyn Noos

Posted
Posted

My initial thoughts on this were like many people in that I thought these superinjunctions were a farce and a complete waste of time.

 

However, I'm now thinking they are a good thing. The tabloids, and the Murdoch tabloids in particular have nothing in their locker but the salacious tittle-tattle about the sex lives of b-list celebs. They don't report news any more because anyone can get their news for free on the internet. If these superinjunctions continue, it will surely be the final nail in the coffin for the Murdoch tabloids. It is they that drive this insane bandwagon. It is they that tap phones to get the gossip to sell their shitty rags. If the superinjunctions mean there is no longer any money in it, slags will stop selling their stories, because the rags will stop paying for them. Seems like a good thing to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VladimirIlyich Grand Master

VladimirIlyich

Posted
Posted
My initial thoughts on this were like many people in that I thought these superinjunctions were a farce and a complete waste of time.

 

However, I'm now thinking they are a good thing. The tabloids, and the Murdoch tabloids in particular have nothing in their locker but the salacious tittle-tattle about the sex lives of b-list celebs. They don't report news any more because anyone can get their news for free on the internet. If these superinjunctions continue, it will surely be the final nail in the coffin for the Murdoch tabloids. It is they that drive this insane bandwagon. It is they that tap phones to get the gossip to sell their shitty rags. If the superinjunctions mean there is no longer any money in it, slags will stop selling their stories, because the rags will stop paying for them. Seems like a good thing to me.

 

I like that side of the argument but the 'figures' cant have it both ways.

 

You cant use the press to further your career and then spit your dummy out when they report your indiscretions.

 

I personally dont care who's shagging who but if you are going to be unfaithful then you know exactly what you are getting yourself into.

 

This Imogen bird,I'd never heard of her before this,was from 'Big Brother' FFS so it doesnt take a genius to work out what she was going to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RedinSweden Grand Master

RedinSweden

Posted
Posted

I found it bizarre that the judge pretty much accused her of blackmail. Bizarre, not surprising though, the doddery old fuck. I agree with the essence of what Noos wrote, but as has proved the point, it is still fucking news. this sort of shit is just going to keep on coming. Personally i think the footballer should just come out and say "Yep, I bummed her. so what?". if his missus doesn't like it, he should have chosen better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Whelan Veteran

Whelan

Posted
Posted

This Imogen bird,I'd never heard of her before this, was from 'Big Brother' FFS so it doesnt take a genius to work out what she was going to do.

 

Exactly, she will be releasing a Pop record soon, she has already had gigs in Manchester and other places!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Elmyn Noos Grand Master

Elmyn Noos

Posted
Posted
I found it bizarre that the judge pretty much accused her of blackmail. Bizarre, not surprising though, the doddery old fuck. I agree with the essence of what Noos wrote, but as has proved the point, it is still fucking news. this sort of shit is just going to keep on coming. Personally i think the footballer should just come out and say "Yep, I bummed her. so what?". if his missus doesn't like it, he should have chosen better.

 

Is it though? If it keeps up, how long before the rags are saying to the slags "sorry but we're not paying for that story as we won't be able to say who it is and everyone will find out off the internet for free"? Who's going to buy the papers when all they can say is "some footballer" or "some politician"? I say keep up the superinjunctions until the tabloid media is on it's knees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...