Saturday, May 21, 2011

Fighting for the right to gossip


Imagine this:

Two friends in a pub.

Jeremy - "I heard a football player is suing Twitter. He had an affair apparently."
Jemima - "Careful. You cannot say that sort of thing. People may be listening."
Jeremy - "This is a free country. I can talk about anything I want. This isn't 1984 or the Minority Report."
Jemima - "Things have changed. We can only talk about facts and figures and have sources and references to back them up."
Jeremy - "My mate at work told me it was a Big Brother contestant."
Jemima - "How ironic is that?"
Jeremy - "Imogen Thomas and what's his name?"

A policeman walks in and points a gun at Jeremy's head.

Policeman - "You are under arrest for breaching the Hot Gossip Act 2011. Anything you say maybe ..."

---

This is the way it is going in the UK. A few duffer judges and "we are above the law rich celebrities" are pushing us into a censorship rules OK armageddon.

The fight for freedom of speech starts today.

So we have a confession. It was us who posted the @InjunctionSuper allegations.

See you in court.

52 comments:

  1. This can't be bad for Barcelona.

    ReplyDelete
  2. They say there's nothing new under the sun, but that's not really true. What's new is that this country is finally waking up to just how corrupt the people supposedly running the country really are.

    Yes, we have a two-tier legal system. Yes, if you have enough money you can pay a judge to create what's effectively a new by-law making it illegal for anyone to gossip about you. And yes, it doesn't matter that what they say is true, you'll be able to prosecute them nonetheless.

    Yesterday one of the UK's most senior judges said that modern technology is out of control. It's not. It's just out of his control and the control of his cronies who uphold justice and equality for anyone who can afford their fees. It's entirely within the control of everyone else, the 99% of the world who rightly believe that justice and due process should be for everyone, and who intend to see to it that that becomes reality. Now if that's a bad thing, I must have missed a meeting.

    ReplyDelete
  3. i would rarther go to prison than have my basic right to know the truth curtailed 60yr old F---k your injuctions !

    ReplyDelete
  4. tell me the name of the footballer or answer this does he play for man utd ! (yes) or (NO)

    ReplyDelete
  5. 'Yesterday one of the UK's most senior judges said that modern technology is out of control. It's not. It's just out of his control and the control of his cronies who uphold justice and equality for anyone who can afford their fees.'

    I like your style Dave, and agree with you wholeheartedly! The ability of technology to allow freedom of speech in a manner that cannot be restrained by the rich and powerful could well prove to be the salvation of nations and our planet.

    By exposing the bunch of miscreants and leeches that collude with financial puppet masters and powerbrokers to undermine the very basis of our society, platforms such as Twitter perform a vital and critical role.

    By enabling people to band together and mobilize their energy in a concerted effort, such services allow a far better coordination and more convenient method of communicating peoples objection than has ever existed before.

    No wonder judges and other figures of the establishment are nervous. For the first time in our history they themselves can be tried in an open and incorruptible court of the public choosing. They have nowhere to hide, and no influence.

    This is democracy! Not the elitist system the establishment strives to protect and perfect. The revolution starts here, and they know it... I have always dreamed the internet could provide hope through communication. Now I'm seeing it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Suppose the footballer is successful in suing Twitter. Will he then go to law to prevent any UK citizens from reading foreign newspaper websites, because as we know his name was freely published in the Spanish press? Will he stop Brits going on holiday to the Costas in case they read about his indiscretions in a local newspaper? Just who is he protecting now? We all know who he is, his wife must know who he is, all the parents of the friends of his kids know who he is, so just who is he protecting now with this ridiculous behaviour? He should have just taken the flak - it would have all been over and done with a month ago! Let's hope he continues to fight expensive legal battles and loses everything!

    ReplyDelete
  7. In an interview on the Today programme this morning Steve Hewlett gave away the first name of the player (and although I'm no football fan I don't know two with that name)and even apologised when he did so. And it's on the i player at 1:51:28. So BBC has published, albeit accidentally at first, and continues to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Well said Dave and Zanoni.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I would lock up all the lawyers, bankers and others in position of power who abuse their privileged positions.

    Justice is an alien concept in the English legal system due to the absolute corruption in the judiciary that has no understanding of real life; they should be replaced by civilian juries, selected at random from the electoral register; the adversarial system should be abolished and replaced by the inquisitorial one.

    As most people should realise, but don't, THERE is ONE law for some and another for the rest of us.

    ReplyDelete
  10. In our Democracy we have a mechanism for dealing with Judges who forget their duties to represent the will of Britain as a whole, and rather support a small and privileged minority. It is called a Guillotine, and I believe the French had much success with it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. All he did is fuck. What justice are you talking about? Do you really feel aggrieved because you don't get access to info about every bloke who can't keep his dick in?

    ReplyDelete
  12. With respect Anonymous (All he did was fuck...) the point that alarms most people (in one specific case) is not that he fucked (a senior colleague), it was that he fucked her at the same time as he fucked up our national economy; some suggest his extra-curricular activities may have affected his performance at work.

    The big issue here, at least for me, is not the adultery theme; it's other cases whereby (for example) senior civil servants have given inside info to companies involved in tenders for civil service contracts.

    Other examples also reflect abuse of position and power, i.e. sacking someone because they didn't like your sexual advances. Sacking someone because you ended an affair with them.

    At the end of the day there are daft and relatively uninteresting SJs and there are others that have far more disturbing and wide reaching implications. The latter are my focus. What a player does on or off the field doesn't interest me in the slightest. It may interest his wife though...

    ReplyDelete
  13. So with Fred Goodwin outed in parliament the other day, the papers were allowed to divulge a bit more of his shenanigans as it was now within the public domain. Now, i think a lot of the public know who this footballer is, so can the papers not do the same?

    ReplyDelete
  14. He, like many professional players, has 'image rights' I imagine. Those rights are worth far more in sponsorship deals if he is a clean-living, happily married man than a cheating scumbag who may, or may not, be willing to allege blackmail in order to win and keep his injunction.

    I am Spartacus !

    ReplyDelete
  15. The papers are doing so. Look for innocent-looking articles (but really, they're being sly) placed right next to mentions of super-injunctions. Or, again, non-articles that are, in many ways, or appear to be totally vacuous until you make the connection like GIANT CLUE

    The Daily Mail had done this consistently since the beginning e.g. a columnist mentioning a Youtube video of an RBS high-flyer and commenting 'innocently' that it was attracting a remarkable number of viewings for such a mundane topic. Another was about an actor always tweeting about his family. Me, I thought he was really into Triumph motorcycles with a name like that !

    The papers could raise this to an art form and there is absolutely nothing the judges can do

    ReplyDelete
  16. Also, why not start bombarding our MPs and newspapers with demands for 'Sir' Fred to become just 'Fred' ?

    It couldn't happen to a nicer man ...........

    ReplyDelete
  17. tell me the name of the footballer or answer this does he play for man utd ! (yes) or (NO)

    I could tell you but I'm a musician and right now I have to rehearse for next week's gigs.

    ReplyDelete
  18. If that last statement is true, I hope you know what you are doing. It's not a game of leapfrog.

    I'm fully with the campaign for more openness - though the political debate/oligarch angle matters to me more than tales about trouserless celebs with a saggy ring to them.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I am not a footballerMay 21, 2011 at 6:08 PM

    @anonymous

    "In an interview on the Today programme this morning Steve Hewlett gave away the first name of the player"

    Come off it. I know nothing about football, but there must by thousands of footballers with the first name of 'Ryan'. Please give us non-footballer types a bit better clue please.

    ReplyDelete
  20. what - as in Giggs?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anonymous says that he's tRyan to rehearse for Gig s.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I posted tons about both Ryan Giggs and Hugh Bonneville all over Twitter and Facebook and I truly hope I get summoned to court, I will NOT accept living in a country that allows rich people to have the power to stop me talking about something, especially something that is TRUE and that THEY have done that is bad. Bring it on.

    ReplyDelete
  23. ....because it is not about anyone giving a toss what Nobody Hugh Bonneville does (Helen Wood is more famous than him anyway) or past-his-prime Ryan Giggs. It's about a small minority being able to use wealth and power to control the rest of us, what we are allowed to talk about which should be a basic human right. THEY are the ones who `commited the crime' yet they are punishing US. So, what? I should go to prison because Ryan Giggs cheated on his wife??? Is is beyond madness.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I thought Ryan was dating Imogen, not dating Hugh. Ooh, tell all, this sounds juicy.

    ReplyDelete
  25. The Russian billionaire whom the Telegraph reports has taken out a super is Alexander Mamut.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I hope this doesn't affect United's preperation against barca next week, thats al i care about.

    ReplyDelete
  27. So who's the TV personality with a widely-watched BBC show and who writes for one of Britain's most respected newspaper that risks going to jail for exposing a footballer's injunction on Twitter (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1389562/TV-star-face-jail-tweets.html)? It appears it's not the Imogen Thomas injunction but another one.

    ReplyDelete
  28. It's Victoria Coren, apparently she posted something on Twitter about Giggs, although there doesn't seem to be anything there now:

    http://twitter.com/#!/VictoriaCoren

    ReplyDelete
  29. A fighting fund has been launched for anyone sued over a super injunction

    Donate.org.uk

    ReplyDelete
  30. The above comment is wrong, but very close (her brother). His tweet wasn't even malicious or revealing, it just stated that Gareth Barry looked relaxed during a match?

    ReplyDelete
  31. These footballers are actually very badly advised by their lawyers. Suing Twitter / a journalist = pouring petrol on flames.

    ReplyDelete
  32. The Mail reports that a hack faces jail over a breach of a super given to a footballer. The player is Gareth Barry, but who is the hack?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Tom, look 3 comments up from your own!

    ReplyDelete
  34. Oops, thanks Anonymous... OK, so it's Giles Coren for tweeting what? Ah yes, the offending tweets may have been deleted, but they are also stored at this link.

    Gareth Barry seems to have dropped one here as his injunction would have passed under the radar had he not gone all big girl's blouse-like.

    ReplyDelete
  35. The point is, the footballers with injunctions HAVE traded on their images. Ryan Giggs - wholesome goody, goody who turned his back on celebrity culture and 'model' professional. Rio "i'm better than Terry" and support campaigns to stop people shooting each other. Owen - goody two shoes image. Massive contracts and image rights like the other two. Mourinho - huge contracts for his 'family man' image. There is not an interview available with Mourinho where he dosen't preach about his family life, how his wife's the boss, how he's the best father in the world, how he is a good person and that is why god blessed him to be the special one..blah blah blah. Drogba getting married again in a second marriage ceremony and big lavish 'do' after his injunction. Plays on 'hero' of Ivory Coast image as well as family man image....etc etc etc. These men are getting huge contracts, image rights and are relying on the High Court to make sure we only see what they want us to know for their profit.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "The fight for freedom of speech starts today," you wrote, and then deleted my comment!

    I was told my Anonymous to look three posts up from mine to find out who the hack was, and I saw that it was Giles Coren. How come the comment I left adding to this debate got censored?

    Folk are advised to click the link and read my tweets for the full story.

    In the meantime I think I am entitled to ask for an explanation

    ReplyDelete
  37. No....the billionaire is L Mittal of the Mittal brothers, and otherwise known as the richest man in the country.

    ReplyDelete
  38. If that last comment was directed at me, then my remarks were about Alexander Mamut, a Russian billionaire.

    I am still waiting to hear why my quite reasonable comment about Giles Coren's now deleted tweets was censored.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Now my deleted comment has been restored... OK, you win, wazzup?

    ReplyDelete
  40. www.IrishCentral.com identifies superinjunction footballer. Search: "Spanish Injunction"

    ReplyDelete
  41. He is not the only daily Mail Hack who knows. Perhaps they can filter some of this information to their Jock colleagues.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1387296/Super-injunctions-Married-players-2-gags-affairs-AND-wedding.html

    ReplyDelete
  42. If it a SUPER injunction, how do we know we can't mention Ryan *****'s name?

    ReplyDelete
  43. And the parody's start..

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdO8lxHoUBw

    ReplyDelete
  44. I love how everyone here seems to think they're somehow entitled to know what's going on in people's private lives.

    I can see the front pages now: "SIDCUP MAN SLEEPS WITH WIFE".

    The post at the top is the most misleading piece of drivel I've read that hasn't had either Alistair Campbell or some idiot fundamentalist near it.

    At this stage, we don't even know whether there was an affair. She says it went on for months, he says they met a couple of times and now she's blackmailing him. The evidence that is alleged to show that there was an affair is said to be staged. You need to be prepared to accept the possibility that this woman is a washed-up reality star looking for a bit of cash, and you can bet she's already made a shitload of cash and publicity over this. This is why the injunction has been granted. If she really believes her claims are true, then let her stand up in court and prove it like everyone else.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I Love it too.
    I love it that someone with deep pockets can think he can buy silence for his indiscretions.
    I love it that he can walk around a football stadium carrying his children with the arrogance his ilk wear like a badge.
    I love it that other so called celebrities can try and protect their finacial interests at the expense of vulnerable people blinded by fame or even necessity.
    I love it that some parliamentarians , Scottish and foreign newspapers and on line bloggers and tweeters have had eough of this hypocracy.
    I love it, I just love it.

    ReplyDelete
  46. "I love it that someone with deep pockets can think he can buy silence for his indiscretions."

    I notice you haven't included your name, address, date of birth, NI number, salary, bank account number, PIN, etc. - why won't you do it? With your censorship you are repressing us - the public has a right to know your credit card details, hypocrite!

    ReplyDelete
  47. Yeah, the public are all clammering to get footballer's banking details. What a poor comment.

    Anyway, does the 'see you in court' mean you've abandoned this blog now Mr InjunctionSuper?

    ReplyDelete
  48. People are clamouring to get private information on an individual's private life, which may or may not even be true in the first place. Perhaps commenters on this blog will reveal their real names, and the names of anyone they've ever had an affair with? (Don't lie, you've all done it - if you haven't, then your spouse probably has. Oh, yes they did.) Why are you somehow entitled to keep your private life private yet the person at the centre of this one isn't? Imogen Thomas has no reason to complain - she went to the press WILLINGLY.

    As I see it, there are still two possibilities here:
    1. A married man carried on a six-month affair with a woman who was not his wife. Not that this is anyone's business but their own.
    2. A woman has set up a rich married man to blackmail him, so the press got photos which would make the one-off meeting where it was threatened look like a regular thing.

    Could be worse, though. At least she's not running around claiming he's a paedophile, as may or may not have happened in one or more or none of the other anonymous injunctions.

    ReplyDelete
  49. No blog entries for a while, can we assume the author now has more pressing legal matters to deal with?

    ReplyDelete
  50. Regardless of what you say and feel is it right that of two people commiting adultry only one has the right to slence? I think they were both stupid her for thinking she was going to get the guy to leave his wife and him for thinking he would not get found out

    ReplyDelete
  51. "Regardless of what you say and feel is it right that of two people commiting adultry only one has the right to slence?"
    That's not true. Imogen lost her "right to silence" when she came forward of her own accord. Any suffering is of her own making. If her family is being put through the mill, it's because she decided to make a quick buck peddling a story which might not even be true. If she was bluffing, then he called it.

    ReplyDelete
  52. "People may be listening"? The News of the World, presumably.

    ReplyDelete