Monday, May 23, 2011

John Hemming outs Giggs and Coren (youtube)

From Sky news...

14 comments:

  1. Who is Giles Coren? Honestly, I had never heard of it / him / whatever?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well done to the man. What a tit John Bercow is. Order..Order. I'll have a Big Mac and Fries, you jumped up little half wit. He was probably getting worried..does he have a super injunction ?

    ReplyDelete
  3. John Hemming confirmed for huge prick. Apparently he claims that he name Giggs because you can't start throwing ordinary people in jail. I'll have to try that one if I'm ever charged with an offence carrying a jail sentence - "But you can't imprison me, I'm an ordinary person!" What likelihood that this defence would succeed?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Whatever his reasons John Hemmings has done a great service to those who want the rich and famous to lift their foot off the neck of the British public. John Hemmings named Ryan Giggs and he will have to face his responsibilities without hiding behind the courts and his cheque book.
    Let us now hope that Giles Coren is not thrown to the wolves in wigs and that others who have taken to the courts to hide their indiscretions do not continue to buy anonimity.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Whatever his reasons John Hemmings has done a great service to those who want the rich and famous to lift their foot off the neck of the British public."

    What are you talking about? Nobody has their foot on the neck of the British public. Nobody is "buying anonymity". People have been trying to assure their privacy, as is their right. Are you suggesting that the poor woman who wants her vegetative daughter to die peacefully has to identify herself to the masses if she wants to question the NHS Trust's decision to keep her alive? (W v M, S, an NHS Trust & the Times)

    ReplyDelete
  6. For whatever reason, C4 news is studiously avoiding playing the Giles Coren part of the Hemmings quote.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous 6.55pm are you a PR agent for Schillings??? Your argument is all very well, but privacy is only available to the very very rich. Most footballers cannot even afford to get hold of £50,000 at a moment's notice. Are you saying that privacy is our right - but only if you have a spare £50,000 - £100,000 as that is the law.

    When you say no-one is buying anonymity you are seriously deluded. For example, remember the woman who put the cat in the bin who became exposed by the media. Could she have got an injunction to prevent her privacy - no. It is not only the rich who have to guard their privacy, but it is only the super rich who can. Justice Eady has proved himself to be heavily sympathetic to the rich applicant (usually male) and makes findings based on only one person's evidence. Is that fair - no. Is it equitable - no. Is it in the interests of the public - no. Trying to justify super / privacy injunctions is trying to sell snow to Eskino's I'm afraid!

    ReplyDelete
  8. TES
    No mention of any pre nuptial agreements here so it must be to protect his Family.
    http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/1308.html

    ReplyDelete
  9. Who is the Anonymous poster who thinks it's ok for a person to claim he is being blackmailed but the person he claims is blackmailing him is unable to counter that claim in court or otherwise because he has a superinjunction? Could that poster be......??????

    ReplyDelete
  10. Swainswick

    Rumors on Twitter (AGAIN) was about another footballers super-injunction by Gareth Barry,

    Giles Coren is the journalist, being sued by Barry for mentioniing his super-injunction Kimberly West affair.

    Hope that clears things up for ya........!

    ReplyDelete
  11. I could'nt care less about some footballers affair,

    What bought me to the party, was I heard some Idiot was going to atempt to sue twitter.

    IMHO that then bought this subject into the public intrest for me so....... I then started to surf to find out exactly who this T*** was....

    ReplyDelete
  12. I think anon above was referring to the phrase'foot on the neck' as it is rather far fetched. Lady with cat was seen by people on camera so no issue there. Anyway the furore created by that cat lady episode was the media's doing. This is, as you can see if you stop foaming at the mouth, an issue that has many grey areas. Hence this blog is somewhat out of line and rather disingenuous.

    ReplyDelete
  13. @ Anonymous

    Thank you for that.

    Like most people I am not interested in celebrity super injunctions only the ones that involve people in positions of authority AND how this superinjunction thing makes a farce of the legal system, showing it up for what it is - a money making business for lawyers, having nothing to do with justice or the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Who is the Anonymous poster who thinks it's ok for a person to claim he is being blackmailed but the person he claims is blackmailing him is unable to counter that claim in court or otherwise because he has a superinjunction?"

    It's because the courts won't injunct stuff after the fact. Imogen Thomas went to the press willingly and of her own accord, and her name was included in the original story, while his was not. If the Sun had gone ahead and named him straight away, then he wouldn't have been granted anonymity either.

    See? Amazing the stuff you find out when you don't go around making retarded assumptions that this is happening because people are rich.

    "Are you saying that privacy is our right - but only if you have a spare £50,000 - £100,000 as that is the law."
    Dude, where have you been the last 10 years? Haven't you heard of no win, no fee?

    ReplyDelete