Friday, May 20, 2011

Footballer to sue Twitter


You know which one it is. A big mistake because he will be taking on the whole media too. I guess he is nearing retirement and needs something to do with his time.

Imagine the legal fees. And the humiliation as every sordid detail is dragged up. Bring it on.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1389208/Love-cheat-Premier-League-football-star-injunction-Imogen-Thomas-The-Sun-suing-Twitter.html


Looks like #IAmSpartacus is going to be back with a vengeance.

Best delete those Tweets too ...

[AND IT JUST GOES ON AND ON]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1389014/Controversial-council-chief-spent-400-000-gagging-orders-silence-ex-staff.html

24 comments:

  1. Odd to comment on one's own post but we have sought legal advice down the pub and been told that because we were not party to an injunction, don't watch big brother or This Morning, have a US blog that is posted to via VPN using proxy servers, we will be fine. Although it would be quite fun in court facing off to some old duffers talking about one of the greatest footballer players ever, his waxed chest and banana knob would surely hav to be mentioned in our defence.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well, under the law in England & Wales your blog is published in England & Wales. You are therefore subject to the injunction and are liable to the most draconian libel laws in the world - a recent case against some obscure American rag was successful because the paper was published via the web in England. Pretty serious stuff. I wouldn't worry about it though. Love to know how it is, I am so intrigued.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I don't think he's suing twitter, just trying to force them to give out the IP of people who've been posting. It'll be interesting to see what Twitter do about it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. He is suing Twitter. If Twitter had an office in the UK, then, once it had been made aware of the tweets, it would become jointly liable for their contents. But, Twitter does not have a physical presence in the UK, hence the disbelief.

    For the first time in this whole sorry saga, I have my first twinge of sympathy for CTB. It’s Schillings sabre-rattling. It may make Schillings look robust, but no good can come of it for their client. Can a case like CTB v Twitter Inc & Persons Unknown be brought on a ‘no win, no fee’ basis? If CTB is paying, he’s wasting his money. He’s getting really poor advice. Stop talking to your solicitor; start talking to your PR agent.

    The only hope of succeeding would have been to portray it as a little local difficulty. There’s nothing that absolutely prevents a US court from subpoenaing Twitter in this case. Twitter is protected by the US constitution, but that protection is not automatically conferred on those outside the US. A direct legal attack on a US company was not the way to go.

    And, as the first comment points out, there’s a good chance that any investigation would run into the sand. Twitter users are disproportionally tech-savvy. All it takes is the use of a VPN in a country that doesn’t require service providers to keep logs.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jarndyce and JarndyceMay 20, 2011 at 10:45 PM

    There are lost Amazonian tribes that know he shagged a Premier League bike by now. Jesus, give it up man.

    ReplyDelete
  6. If any UK twitter users were traced and they are not press/journalist people would they legally have commited any crime anyway?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Technically anyone who says anything is guilty of contempt of court. The best answer would be for someone to mention it in Parliament, since that is protected by parliamentary privilege.

    ReplyDelete
  8. she needs one of these...

    http://www.redbubble.com/people/gezzamondo/t-shirts/7205536-super-injunction

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ok, Schillings say CTB is not suing Twitter.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13477811

    This would make it an application for a Norwich Pharmacal order, in which Twitter would be a respondent. It wouldn’t be a defendant, because it has nothing to defend. Bloomberg started all this off, and definitely called Twitter a defendant. The Guardian also called Twitter a defendant, and the rest of the press piled in with words like ‘sue.’

    So much for Lord Judge’s idea that big media is more reliable than part-time bloggers and tweeters.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Wikipedia joins in...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Giggs#Gagging_order

    ReplyDelete
  11. Schillings law firm applies to twitter to find who posted information on someone having an affair with Imogen Thomas. The person named on twitter having an affair with Imogen Thomas was Ryan Giggs. Therefore, Schillings law firm is acting on behalf of Ryan Giggs. Therefore, Ryan Giggs had an affair with Imogen Thomas.

    It's a pity Ryan Giggs didn't have an injunction banning mention of his affair. If he had, he could have sued Schillings for outing him.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Giggs is a pillock; he's just drawn a lot more attention to himself.

    For the last week or so I've been searching the internet and re-posting links to the details about the various injunctions and have suffered no unpleasant consequences.

    ReplyDelete
  13. have to say he will get the treatment from the fans and deservedly so. He broke his vows and left Imogen to it. his poor family what a sh*t

    ReplyDelete
  14. He was outed on the Today programme on radio 4 this morning around 0845 BST. The media correspondent said "what Ryan is trying to do" and quickly backtracked

    ReplyDelete
  15. Cyan Biggs is not a footballer. Don't interperet this abstract piece of information as anything other than an isolated statement.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Surely giggs lawyer should know that an IP address can be hidden if your smart enough, Also that it can be an internet cafe or public place.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Well it just shows, that the oldest profession in the world, that furry magnet is the center of attraction and it still costs a lot of money.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I just saw photos of Giggs' wife and WOW, wtf was he thinking of cheating on her? I'd take her over Imogen Thomas anyday.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I must say, seeing Schillings running around filing writs is awfully funny!

    ReplyDelete
  20. Has anyone investigated his image rights, typically these are taken offshore very quickly to avoid tax. I dont know but has this been done in this case

    ReplyDelete
  21. Dont those chaps from Anonymous usually go after pretentious twats who try to censor the internet like $cientologists?
    Seems like something right up their alley.

    And can spanish fans be prosecuted if one wears a Giggs shirt and starts making out with some bimbo in the stands at Wembley?


    Maybe Giggs lawyers have failed to mention the Streisand Effect to him:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
    but this wont make anything go away.
    Just the opposite.

    Give it up, the knighthood is now gone.

    I am anonymous but I am not Anonymous.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "I just saw photos of Giggs' wife and WOW, wtf was he thinking of cheating on her?"

    We don't know that he did. We only have the word of a washed-up reality show contestant that there was a six-month affair, and we only have the word of a bunch of random people on Twitter that it was actually him. This is precisely why the gagging order is in place, and why it also prevents people from identifying the person involved.

    ReplyDelete
  23. So what you´re all trying to say is that Ryan Giggs had an affair with Imogen Thomas which lasted about 7 months, and because somebody reported this filthy behavior he´s going to sue them. Sounds like a total fucking tosser to me.

    ReplyDelete
  24. skirtde: Ryan Giggs ALLEGEDLY had an affair with Imogen Thomas, and the source of the allegation is unreliable and has questionable motives. That's why he's suing.

    ReplyDelete