Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Legal_AIDS revelations are explosive


When a 6 Tweet Tweeter Tweeted, the UK media went into overdrive. Although @InjunctionSuper went awol, it pre-empted the outing of Ryan Giggs.

So the latest injunction buster, @Legal_Aids (Sue Mae) is going much further and outing many more people plus linking to media stories and the injunctions themselves. This is us first to note the Tweets (4 hours after they were posted).

This is explosive stuff. The Courts appear helpless, the MP's are all on holiday and the media don't know where to turn.

And yet this Tweeter has very few followers. Looks like the threat of prison is praying on the minds of Tweeters.

Or is it most of the tittle tattle (unproven of course) is so mundane that the media and little people are no longer interested?

A typical outing ...
http://twishort.com/aczcz

The media responds ...
http://www.metro.co.uk/tech/864851-new-twitter-account-names-more-injunction-celebrities

Courts to take out injunction against Twitter

Given the Courts are able to gag people against their will (Imogen Thomas for example) then surely the Courts must be considering a hyper injunction against Twitter. It would be quite easy to do.

The Judges would be creating a new law that effectively bans anyone in the UK using Twitter. Anyone found using it, having a Tweet app on their phone or mentioning its name would be in contempt of court and would go to jail.

All those whose crimes are petty like rape and murder would be set free under the Human Rights Act because it "wasn't their fault" to make way for over zealous gossipers who have nothing better to do than spread lies, filth and distress to celebrities who try and keep the little people entertained.

Here is the latest injunction






England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions







England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions >>

UKG v The Population of the UK (including Scotland)[2011] EWHC 1341 (QB) (31 May 2011)

URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/6666.html

Cite as:
[2011] EWHC 6666(QB)














Neutral Citation Number: [2011] EWHC 666 (QB)


Case No:HQ11X06666


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION








Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL


31/05/2011







B e f o r e :

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE JUDGE

____________________


Between:







THE JUDGES Claimant

- and -

THE LITTLE PEOPLE Defendant



____________________


??? QC (instructed by Matrix) for the Applicant

JOE BLOGGS QC (instructed by No Win No Fee LLP) for the Defendant




Hearing dates: 31 May 2011


____________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
____________________

Crown Copyright ©



    Mr Justice Judge:
  1. Notwithstanding the title to the action, this judgment relates to the Judges, that is us the super privileged and powerful, and the little people of the United Kingdom, including Scotland despite over ruling the Scottish legal system, who are causing us problems.

  2. The Applicant is a body of Judges who earn huge fees from the over use of injunctions by Celebrities. The Applicant wishes to apply a blanket ban on technology because it is undermining the efficient processes of the Court.

  3. In Attorney-General v Punch [2003] 1 AC 1046 Lord Nicholls said:
  4. "2. Contempt of court is the established, if unfortunate, name given to the species of wrongful conduct which consists of interference with the administration of justice. It is an essential adjunct of the rule of law. Interference with the administration of justice can take many forms. In civil proceedings one obvious form is a wilful failure by a party to the proceedings to comply with a court order made against him. By such a breach a party may frustrate, to greater or lesser extent, the purpose the court sought to achieve in making the order against him…
    3. The form of contempt asserted by the Attorney General in the present case is different, although closely related. Sometimes the purpose a court seeks to achieve in making an order against a party to proceedings may be deliberately impeded or prejudiced by the conduct of a third party. This may take more than one form. The third party may be assisting, that is, aiding and abetting, a breach of the order by the person against whom the order was made. Then he is an accessory to the breach of the order….
    4. Aiding and abetting a breach of the order by the person specifically restrained by the order is not always an essential ingredient of 'third party' contempt. The purpose of a court in making an order may be deliberately frustrated by a third party even though he is acting independently of the party against whom the order was made. An interlocutory order for the non-disclosure of information is the paradigm example of the type of order where this principle is in point. The Spycatcher litigation is the best known recent instance of this. It is a contempt of court by a third party, with the intention of impeding or prejudicing the administration of justice by the court in an action between two other parties, himself to do the acts which the injunction restrains the defendant in that action from committing if the acts done have some significant and adverse affect on the administration of justice in that action: see Lord Brandon of Oakbrook in Attorney General v Times Newspapers Ltd [1992] 1 AC 191, 203D, 206G-H, and, for the latter part, Lord Bingham of Cornhill CJ in Attorney General v Newspaper Publishing plc [1997] 1 WLR 927, 936. Lord Phillips MR neatly identified the rationale of this form of contempt, at [2001] QB 1028, 1055, paragraph 87:
    "The contempt is committed not because the third party is in breach of the order - the order does not bind the third party. The contempt is committed because the purpose of the judge in making the order is intentionally frustrated with the consequence that the conduct of the trial is disrupted."
  5. It is clear then that the little people are in contempt of court. The use of Twitter, SMS, Facebook and blogs are no longer allowed to be used by any UK citizen and anyone who does will not only be in contempt of court but shall endure a minimum of 10 years in prison with no probation.

  6. This judgment must not be disclosed to anyone who is not a QC.







BAILII:
Copyright Policy |

Disclaimers |
Privacy Policy |
Feedback |
Donate to BAILII

URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/6666.html

I am not a number


As we have blogged before, the Human Rights Act 1998 is not fit for purpose.

Drafted in 1998, a year when only nerds used the internet, a Labour MP said he wanted to give every family a computer by 2002 as a millennium gift from the National Lottery to help people become more Internet friendly.

Recipients would also be given 10 hours free Internet access a week. (bbc)

How times have changed. Little did the politicians realise their attempts to create a constitution through the HRA98 would back fire so badly. It has taken years of disquiet for it at last to be shown up to be badly drafted and irrelevant in a Twitter based world.

Let us not forget that the serving Prime Minister in 1998 was Tony Blair, a lawyer, who always felt the Judicary was the best place to resolve Human Rights and the HRA98 would be something his wife could benefit from. She is a Human Rights lawyer and she has done very well from it after setting up the Matrix Chamber in 2000.

The Telegraph argue the case for abandoning the HRA98 quite well...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/maryriddell/8546514/The-battle-between-Parliament-and-the-judges-has-only-just-begun.html

...for many more relevant reasons than injunction breaching.

Ryan Giggs may one day be hailed as the person who destroyed the HRA98 and help create the Bill of Rights the UK so desperately needs. What a legacy is that eh?

I am not a number although Giggs is number 11.

Cat and mouse


Wakey wakey. Is the Attorney General watching?

As we reported, another Tweeter posted allegations about injunctions at the weekend. However, as soon as we grabbed a screen shot, the account then disappeared. The mouse went back into its hole. So what are the Courts going to do about it? Another Tweeter is sure to do the same again. The Courts cannot respond fast enough and as each day passes, these celebrity injunctions become unenforceable.

Thankfully the beady eyes of the media who use TweetDeck to monitor injunction breaking Tweets are at hand to point out the ludicrous situation. They cannot mention the Tweets but can mention the messenger. Twitter is making Wikileaks look like yesterday's technology.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/online/new-twitter-breach-as-claims-of-celebrity-gagging-orders-published-2291088.html

Guido Fawkes quoted in the Independent said "People doing this kind of thing isn't new... During the Northern Rock crisis there was a document from Merrill Lynch [about any proposed deal with the bank]. I had a copy and the FT [Financial Times] had a copy but the FT got hit with an injunction within two hours. I just uploaded it from an Indian website."

So what are the politicians doing about it? Nothing because they are all on holiday.

Helen Wood joins Twitter


We are scraping the barrel now.

Helen Wood, party to injunctions past and present has joined Twitter.

@Helen__Wood

Now why would she do that? Seems to us the threat of prison is not putting people off who need to sell books or promote themseleves. Another nail in the injunction coffin.

Let us see if she is coerced in saying things she shouldn't. Which she will. And more newspapers will be sold.

The evolution of gossip: Talk beats Twitter


According to a TNS survey, many people knew Ryan Giggs was party to an injunction before anyone Tweeted.

Reading the story in the FT ...

"Gossip, not Twitter, toppled gagging order"

As a headline this sounds punchy against the detail ...

"The researcher found that two in five surveyed claimed to know that it was Ryan Giggs who took out a super-injunction to prevent publication of an alleged affair, before it was revealed by John Hemming, a Liberal Democrat MP, in parliament last week."

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/e5c95d7e-8a03-11e0-beff-00144feab49a.html

Monday, May 30, 2011

Daily Mail takes down incriminating web page



Bloggers and Tweeters do it all the time. Deleting stuff.

It is rare for newspapers to do this so we wonder why the Daily Mail took this page down (see screen shot)?

Click here to see page has been removed ...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1391710/A-180-000-pay-Scotland-Yard-misconduct-police-chief.html

Our original post ...
http://super-injunction.blogspot.com/2011/05/sexual-misconduct-in-police-force.html

Is it because there was an injunction out?

Twitter: Sue Mae outs some injunctions


A new Twitterer has tweeted who the parties are to a number of existing injunctions. Unlike others who have just named names, this person has cited media sources and links to the original injunction.

@legal_AIDS

Twitter is like a virus; you just cannot put it down. Surely this is the end of celebrity injunctions? This is what Forbes thinks:

http://blogs.forbes.com/adamthierer/2011/05/29/with-freedom-of-speech-the-technological-genie-is-out-of-the-bottle/

Now this maybe a coincidence, but is the person behind the recent hyper injunction where no mention of life support machine or hospital or persons was allowed to be mentioned Dame Barbara Mills?:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/finance-obituaries/8545037/Dame-Barbara-Mills.html

[UPDATE]
We put in this Barbara Mills speculation to demonstrate the side effects of gagging orders. People like to guess and tell and the innocent get hurt.

Sunday, May 29, 2011

Hemming to out all celebrities


John Hemming is going to out all the celebrities with injunctions. We hope he does.

"If people are going to take action against ordinary people gossiping on Twitter I think they should be outed and this is why I outed Ryan Giggs. If you want to go round locking people up just because they have done something naughty to you by gossiping, you should at least say who you are.We can’t have secret trials, where you don’t know who’s prosecuting, you don’t know who the defendant is and you don’t know what is the case.”

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/249468/John-Hemming-I-ll-name-all-the-celebrities-with-injunctions

Everyone knows except us


Us little people are little because we know so little.

By coincidence we were at a Barcelona v Man Utd (nice assist by Ryan Giggs) barbecue last night with a couple of BBC executives. Whilst we huddled for warmth, they told us about all the injunctions and named names. They mentioned a BBC executive, an MP and some other celebs. We promised not to blog them and we won't but they are all on Twitter and other blog sites so you will have to look elsewhere. We asked how they knew so much and they said they had to know just in case by mistake they were mentioned on air at the same time as the word "injunction". So a lot of BBC executives know the list of 80. And BBC people like to talk.

Now Giggsgate is petering out, we talked about who is next? Well it seems Jeremy Clarkson could be the one and the BBC is worried because he earns them a lot of money. And don't forget he is a civil servant paid for by the tax payer. Allegedly.

An employee of a well known lawyer who was serving the sausages, from a firm that has taken out injunctions, told us the legal community know who the parties to the ABC injunctions are. Unlike the BBC however, they would not discuss anything more except saying Schillings were "aggressive" and "adversarial" and there were many more injunctions in the pipleline.

Hopefully these new injunctions are to protect vulnerable people. But we doubt it.

Onto other news and an American actor tells us super injunctions are a good thing:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/hay-festival/8544242/Rob-Lowe-at-Hay-Festival-internet-shouldnt-be-immune-to-super-injunction-laws.html

James Webley denies he was first to out Ryan Giggs


As we revealed and is reported in today's Sunday Times, @unknownj was the first person on Twitter to out Ryan Giggs.

Well he is trying to wriggle out of this because he doesn't want to go to prison. Unless he can prove he wasn't the first. This is the source he claims he took this Tweet from ...

http://www.newsmediaimages.com/celebrity-article-22757-imogen-thomas-is-welsh-who-else-do-you-know-who-is-welsh/

Ryan Giggs loses a match but gets his Tweeters


Following the revelations that Twitter has handed over UK users accounts (not that they are of much use) the implications on all Twitter users are considerable.

A bunch of civil servants (paid for by the UK tax payer) used tax payers money (hundreds of thousands of pounds) to seek Twitter accounts which defamed them as individuals ...

... Mark Stephens, a leading media lawyer who has represented WikiLeaks’ founder Julian Assange after the US government sought to obtain his Twitter account details, said: “I think it is inappropriate for a local authority to spend money on this kind of exercise. Local authorities cannot sue for libel and, if individual councillors have been defamed, they should take proceedings at their own cost.” (as reported in the telegraph)

More important though is this precedent means anyone with the financial clout can ask the Superior Court in California to hand over details about Twitter accounts. Ryan Giggs, who lost a match yesterday, may get his wish after all and 70,000 Tweeters will soon be added to the prison population of the UK.

Free speech is no longer a right in the UK. And Twitter is no longer a place to gossip but a place to fear. Next it will be Facebook. Then comments on newspaper pages. And blogs. And anyone who has opinions ...

Saturday, May 28, 2011

Twitter caves in and hands over details


Uncorroborated but apparently Twitter has handed over details... and this will be in the Sunday Telegraph.

This is not for the Ryan Giggs outings but for another case ...

http://themediablog.typepad.com/the-media-blog/2011/05/twitter-users-libel.html

[UPDATE A FEW MINUTES LATER]

The Telegraph have said...


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/twitter/8544350/Twitter-reveals-secrets-Details-of-British-users-handed-over-in-landmark-case-that-could-help-Ryan-Giggs.html

Sexual misconduct in the police force


Private Eye 1289 mentions a case involving serious allegations of sexual misconduct against a senior staff member of the Met police force.

The man has taken early retirement after a period of sick leave.

The Daily Mail have reported he is married, in his 50s and ...

"...He has overseen a number of controversial issues that have led to turmoil within the organisation and the departure of key individuals. Yet in a rare move, both he and his female colleague, who is considerably younger than him, have persuaded an employment tribunal judge to impose a secrecy order on the proceedings."

Apparently Private Eye should not have mentioned he worked for the Met police.

So more civil servants funded by the tax payer are using our money to take out injunctions.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1391918/New-gagging-order-row-erupts-Court-hear-sensitive-sex-case-secret.html


[UPDATE 30 MINUTES LATER]

As pointed out by a commentator this is an odd story because the day before the Daily Mail appear to name the people ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1391710/A-180-000-pay-Scotland-Yard-misconduct-police-chief.html

"A leading Scotland Yard official under investigation over ‘highly sensitive’ misconduct allegations made by a female colleague has retired early with a £180,000 pay-off. Critics claim that Martin Tiplady, the Met’s director of human resources, has been given favourable treatment because of his status in the force.

The Daily Mail revealed in October that Mr Tiplady was facing career-threatening allegations made by Raphaella Hamilton-Appiah, a member of staff more than 20 years his junior."

Friday, May 27, 2011

Twitter: Has it handed over details?


Has Twitter complied with the Court order to hand over details of Tweeters who outed Ryan Giggs? The deadline was a few hours ago. Like tumbleweed, it has gone very quiet indeed. Maybe they are having to translate it into French first.

This man, Hugh Tomlinson QC, at the cutting edge of these court decisions, gives us his view on privacy which as you would expect involves lots of fees for him and gagging the rest of us:

"The fact the law is difficult to enforce doesn't mean you don't try to enforce it."

"There's a very slow but obvious convergence between European legal systems. Aspects of the approach in France are coming into English law. We are becoming more French."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/may/27/injunctions-row-celebrities-secret

For those of you who like watching videos and a need a recap on Giggsgate, this is a good place to go:

http://www.newsy.com/videos/the-gigs-up-giggs-sues-twitter/

ANL and the Daily Mail


Here is the Daily Mail "Contempt of Court" ruling following the publication of the infamous "Here are some clues" to Goodwin's lover. It has been left open.


http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/1341.html


"The reason that I decline to make the reference is that in my judgment it would not assist the Attorney-General. The lady is free to refer the matter to the Attorney-General herself, and the Attorney-General is free to act of his own motion. This case has received extensive coverage in very many newspapers and other news media, and has been the subject of public judgments."

Cartoon

Ryan Giggs: Is this the first ever Tweet?


Thanks to our intrepid team of Tweet searchers, Malcolm Coles has dug out what he thinks is the first Tweet stating Ryan Giggs was having an affair with Imogen Thomas.

Given we believe the injunction was taken out the next day, 15 April 2011 (please prove us wrong), this Tweeter has not breached the injunction so will not have to worry about a knock on the door from Twopence-Ruck LLP.

@unknownj, James Webley, must be very pleased himself.

http://super-injunction.blogspot.com/2011/05/so-who-did-out-ryan-giggs-first_25.html

Poison, Envy, Anger and Hatred


Have a guess who who wrote this? A celebrity perhaps? A politician? Maybe someone party to an injunction?

"They moralise about privacy, but our press barons' real agenda is to spread the poison of envy, anger and hatred"

Wrong. It was a journalist (Polly Toynbee in the Guardian).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/24/rightwing-media-makes-political-personal

She makes an interesting argument but is obviously living in the wrong country. Perhaps she should write for the North Korea Times or the Zimbabwe Chronicle. She would feel much more at home writing within a framework of censorship.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurring_in-jokes_in_Private_Eye


Not that anyone is interested in what she has to say - much more interesting reading title tattle from Helen Wood who is the new Heidi Klum of the UK:


http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23953885-i-became-an-escort-because-i-wasnt-interested-in-men-says-rooney-girl.do



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1391391/Wayne-Rooney-prostitute-Helen-Wood-Call-girl-friend-charging-MP-sex.html

Good injunctions, Bad injunctions


As you know an injunction is an Order of the Court which requires a party to do or refrain from doing a certain act. The Court will not grant an Injunction where damages would be an appropriate alternative.

The tittle-tattle-gag-and-shag injunction outings over the past few weeks have highlighted the mess the UK privacy laws are in. Were they appropriate? Is it a win-win situation or are those being gagged (Helen Wood and Imogen Thomas for example) blameless victims whose human rights have been violated?

Whilst a debate is ensuing, we should look at where injunctions are used appropriately.

There are many occasions when an injunction is required to protect human beings from being hurt or killed and domestic violence is one where an injunction provides a short term remedy before criminal proceedings are taken.

http://www.womensaid.org.uk/domestic-violence-survivors-handbook.asp?section=000100010008000100330002

Protecting one's career like Goodwin, Giggs, Terry, Marr etc is not the same as protecting oneself from a violent person and these Celebs should spend their money on supporting those in society who cannot afford Twopence-Ruck LLP instead of wasting the Court's time on injunctions to cover up misdeeds.

Twitter to reveal what exactly?


So Twitter may be warning some of its Tweeters like @ianian1984 and @InjunctionSuper it will be passing on information about their Tweeting activities to PC Plod, or more likely lawyers Twopence-Ruck LLP, in the near future.

I wonder what Twitter will be giving them? When you open a Twitter account you provide an email address and that is just to authenticate the account. So PC Plod will be given an IP address roughly showing where the Tweets were made, that persons followers and the people they follow, an email address (probably a disposable one) and a few Tweets.

Wow. Unlike tracking down digital pirates or paedophiles where there is audit trail and mp3s and mpegs, PC Plod will have virtually nothing.

A court will find it very difficult to prove someone Tweeted unless they admit it.

"Was not me guv, someone must have borrowed my phone / iPad / Mac / PC. It was probably a virus. I reckon it was my old mates who now live in Australia, or somewhere, from the pub wot did it. I don't even watch football or have a TV..."

http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2011/05/britains_press

Thursday, May 26, 2011

Death threats and other news


Thought for the day...

"The cult of celebrity is the major mental disease of the modern world. Ordinary people living alienated lives have their minds infected with thoughts and fantasies surrounding the vacuous trivia of celebrity lives., The celebrities are generally useless people who make nothing, but a lot of money from parading themselves in public. Celebrities are the empty clerics of the modern word. Celebrities fill our empty lives with their own emptiness. Exposing celebrates for being fakes and hypocrites does go some way to cure people of disease of the celebrity cult. But not as much as ignoring them and taking an interest in things that matter like the revolutions in Spain and Syria. Ryan Giggs is and was just a winger."

http://publique.megavyzia.org/en/gb/content/articles/en_gb_v1e1m1f1id00000039.html

Religion Celebrity worship is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. —Karl Marx, Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right

====

Twitter are refusing to help police (evening standard) in providing information re bad Tweets to Imogen Thomas, and she cannot help them because she is gagged by the injunction. This is the unacceptable consequence of injunctions and playing with the media and she is the victim here although we can only conjecture because she is gagged from talking.

Giggs' wife Stacey Cooke has vowed to stay with the man who strayed:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1391118/Ryan-Giggss-wife-says-stick-footballer-despite-Imogen-Thomas-affair.html


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/05/26/love-cheat-footy-star-ryan-giggs-gets-team-talk-from-the-wife-he-betrayed-115875-23157125/


Helen Wood tells Hugh Bonneville (well that is who the Tweeters believe he is) to give himself up (although he has already told his wife):

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3601320/Wayne-Rooney-hooker-Helen-Wood-urges-actor-who-gagged-Sun-to-come-clean-over-romp.html

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/video/news/sky-news/3592412/Helen-Wood-on-injunctions.html

And on and on it goes.

Meanwhile at the G8 in France, Google and Facebook tell us free speech is good for you (are you listening Twitter?)

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/tech/news/article_1641605.php/Facebook-founder-Google-boss-to-address-G8-summit

Is this the end of Twitter?


We are in the midst of a tech bubble with LinkedIn and RenRen having IPO'd at humungous amounts. Although Twitter's Biz Stone has denied they are ready for an IPO, he must be staring at a multi billion dollar payoff so he must be tempted. (Guardian says Twitter is worth about $10 billion)

That was the case a couple of days ago. Now Twitter is apparently looking at handing over personal data to non US authorities, the value of Twitter is diminishing rapidly. Despite the UK helping Twitter reach its highest ever Tweet rate, they are looking to kick us all in the teeth.

We wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing accounts being deleted at a rapid rate and Twitter being binned by the end of the year.

Would you dare say anything on Twitter that could leave you open to having all your assets taken away and a spell in prison?

Unless of course the UK sorts out its Privacy Legislation (Bill of Rights and all that good stuff) in which case Biz Stone can look forward to joining the billionaires club instead of joining Julian Assange in prison.

http://www.prweek.com/news/rss/1071722/Twitter-faces-regulation-threat/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/may/25/twitter-privacy-injunction-battle

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/25/google_profiles_database_dump/

Andrew Marr needs to be held to account


In the US they are looking to launch a criminal investigation into the use of tax payers monies to cover Arnie Schwarzenegger's affairs.

So why isn't someone doing something about the injunctions taken out by Andrew Marr (a BBC employee), or the sitting MP we are not allowed to know about, or the BBC Radio 5 presenter Guido Fawkes believes has an injunction out too?

There are probably more civil servants out there who have used tax payers monies including Andrea Hill of Suffolk County Council who the Daily Mail has taken a dislike to.

People like these need to be tried and held to account.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1390808/Did-Arnold-Schwarzenegger-use-tax-payers-money-cover-sexual-liaisons-Ex-security-advisors-explosive-new-claims-say-yes.html

The KGM soap opera


Twitter bought Tweetdeck (a UK based software company) for $40 million. Maybe they should have saved this and put it in a Tweeters legal fighting fund as Euro man Wang's turnaround now seems to imply they will inform Tweeters who are being hunted down by Schillings et al.

Onto other matters. The latest Court judgment is out and a few lines are redacted. Now that is really silly.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2010/3145.html

KGM is the Gordon Ramsay injunction which has been partially lifted. Reading the judgment is like a chapter in novel. I don't know why we have newspapers anymore; these judgments are way more tittle - tattle interesting:

"...It so happens that the daughter who only found out recently about her father's "second" family is married to the chef and businessman Gordon Ramsay. The Claimant was until recently associated with Gordon Ramsay in business. He was the chief executive of Gordon Ramsay Holdings Ltd and Gordon Ramsay Holdings International Ltd which, together with various subsidiaries, constitute the Gordon Ramsay Group. In October of this year, however, the Claimant was dismissed."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/twitter/8536641/Gagging-orders-Twitter-prepared-to-hand-over-user-data.html

http://www.techwatch.co.uk/2011/05/26/twitters-acquisition-of-tweetdeck-is-confirmed/

Wednesday, May 25, 2011

Twitter man should be fired immediately


Mr Tony Wang is the European Twitter boss. He has no sympathy for Ryan Giggs Tweeters:

"Mr Wang made it clear that if the matter came to court, those people would be on their own."

Now Mr Wang probably has some stock options that have been rising rapidly because of the the UK's love of Twitter. He should be supporting his users not being a Wanger.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13546847

Super Injunction Jokes

There have been a few jokes on Twitter about injunctions. There are some more here

http://www.theda.co.uk/tag/super-injunction-jokes

Please paste some joke into the comments as we all need a good laugh. Now the Ryan Giggs bubble has burst the media are not sure what to do next so while we help them with the next agenda, it is time for a short break to think about what the next big moment is going to be.

CDE FGH LMN looks interesting ....

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2010/3308.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1348279/TV-star-phone-sex-single-mother-wins-gagging-order.html


http://thegrimreaperwrites.blogspot.com/2011/01/about-that-tv-personalitys-gagging.html

Springclean

We have had to spring clean our blog and a lawyer mate (no win, no fee, you know it makes sense) has just been reviewing our postings since April. This involved exporting and reimporting the blog. Consequently our postings are broken on google - sorry about that but you can never be too careful. This post will be deleted in the next day or two when the google bots get back into action. If they ever do.

Lawyers, Estate Agents and Traffic Wardens


Lawyers are getting a good pummeling today.

Firstpost have a good analysis of the current injunction legal mess:

"To work, any law needs to meet five basic tests. First it needs to appear fair, whereas the current privacy law appears to operate largely for the benefit of rich, male adulterers.

Second, it must be proportionate; using super-injunctions to curb what is essentially gossip hardly ticks that box either.

Third, any legal process should be transparent, yet by definition super-injunctions are secret.

Fourth, any law must be workable; unfortunately the internet and Twitter have rendered this one unworkable.

Finally, a law has to have widespread consent which, as we are seeing at the moment, this one lacks.

This is a pretty impressive list of failings, and the judges can't say they were not warned."

No wonder the lawyers like Carter-Ruck and Schillings have been enjoying themselves.

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/79414,news-comment,news-politics,injunctions-break-every-rule-of-good-law-making

Others have sought to get their own back on the jumped up tea boy who became a millionaire (Del Trotter style) on the back of the Human Rights Act 1998 and its greyness:

Schillings website says

"An intimate knowledge of media law is essential to helping our clients effectively. One of our core skills is in obtaining injunctions at very short notice to prevent the publication of private information. This can only be achieved when there is no prevailing public interest in the material in question. The court will look to see whether, on the facts of the case, the right to privacy should outweigh the right to freedom of expression."

We are all for Capitalism and the man has done a good job out of a bad law. Unfortunately Twitter has destroyed his credibility and Max Clifford must be excited to see clients going back to him.

http://order-order.com/2011/05/25/schillings-backlash-parliament-should-define-privacy-limitations/

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/oliver-wright-legal-attack-dogs-who-barked-up-wrong-tree-2288608.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1390626/The-Injunction-King-cabal-grasping-lawyers-2-000-hour-assault.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/8533802/Our-privacy-problem-stems-from-the-Human-Rights-Act-which-must-be-amended-to-limit-courts-role.html

Gordon Ramsay injunction is partially lifted


The Sun, Mirror and Daily Mail have forced the partial lifting of an injunction such that one of the parties is now named - KGM is Chris Hutcheson, Gordon Ramsay's father in law.

"He only had one friend and that was me. Now he has sacked me. We were a brand. I feel I have been vaporised" (daily mail)

At last, a QC recognises the futility of some of these injunctions:

"Hugh Tomlinson QC, for Hutcheson, said the case related to "family issues – conduct which might well be said to be morally blameworthy" but not criminal or regulatory misconduct."

[UPDATE 11AM]
Now can see why this injunction was an abuse of the Human Rights Act. Who gives a hoot...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/8534944/Gordon-Ramsays-father-in-law-fathered-two-children-by-a-mistress.html

Jemima Khan and Guido Fawkes



Playful banter or reality?

So who did out Ryan Giggs first?


The Evening Standard has named some Twitter celebrities who are going to be sued. This is a bit silly.

There were thousands who Tweeted Ryan Giggs name before he had been outed by an MP, and the Evening Standard Tweeters have been picked on because they are:

a) famous
b) famous
c) famous;

They are:

Piers Morgan
Dom Joly
Boy George
Toby Young

But did they really know CTB was Ryan Giggs? I extremely doubt it. They were like sheep and were just copying the little people who had learned of CTB's real identity. We, like many others, learned about it potentially being him from Twitter, forums, blogs and the mainstream media who were laying out nice clues.

The real question is who leaked first? One of Imogen Thomas's friends perhaps? Someone at Schillings? Maybe Giggs after a yoga session? Or one of the newspapers? Sounds to us like a full government enquiry is required. This is serious stuff.

When we started this blog in April, someone commented and said

"Google imogen thomas injunction"

...which we did and there was his name. So Google has a good idea who posted something online way before @InjunctionSuper did on 8 May 2011.

The injunction, we believe, was taken out on 15 April 2011 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8452829/Footballer-wins-gagging-order-over-affair-claim.html

The Daily Mirror reported on 21 April 2011, after the CTB injunction had been tightened up on that day, http://www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/news/2011/04/21/premier-league-star-who-cheated-with-imogen-thomas-told-his-secret-his-safe-as-court-tightens-injunction-115875-23075834/ the footballer was a family man and a household name. They also described Imogen Thomas as a busty "Welsh" girl.

The Daily Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1379045/Permanent-gagging-order-hushes-TV-stars-shame-ever.html?ito=feeds-newsxml said surprisingly very little, but the Daily Telegraph did tell its readers it was easy to find his name:

"It takes two clicks on Google to find out who NEJ is, and you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to discover the identity of the footballer who had an affair with Big Brother contestant Imogen Thomas. The judge gave him the initials CTB, which we must presume stands for 'cheating, two-timing bastard'"

Wikipedia edits also showed his name around this time. So it must have been "out there" for quite a while.

16 April 2011, a blog stated it was Giggs http://newsgeneral.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=news&action=print&thread=10364" "Iv no idea but try thinking of flying welsh winger whose name rhymes with ryan giggs......."

18 April 2011 "Educated guess! Just enter ryan giggs into search on twitter. The whole of twitterland seems to think its him. Can't blame him anyway I think she's bang tidy!" was reported on http://www.owlstalk.co.uk/forums/index.php?showtopic=149400

23 April 2011, Have I Got News For You had a Tory MP mouthing his name (it was bleeped out) and some of the audience may have heard Giggs's name being said. http://www.caughtoffside.com/2011/04/23/named-on-tv-imogen-thomas-married-premier-league-footballer-love-rat-revealed-on-have-i-got-news-for-you-super-injunction-censors-broadcast/

27 April 2011, this blog http://jailhouselawyersblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/ryan-giggs-obtains-gagging-order-over.html explicitly stated Giggs had taken out an injunction.

By 30 April 2011, many forums were reporting his name (along with many other potential footballers) including http://www.caughtoffside.com/2011/04/30/sunday-tabloid-to-name-imogen-thomas-super-injunction-premier-league-footballer/ where Ryan Giggs was outed by many commentators.

1 May 2011, Rod Liddle published Ryan Giggs name in the Sunday Times.

And here is a chart of Tweets relating to Giggs:



But the real issue is few of these people were party to the injunction or knew of its existence so how can they be held in contempt of court?

[UPDATE]
Thanks for pointing this out whatsthedirt commentator; this looks like the first outing on Twitter and the Tweeter Schillings are after ...

The media gets angry


Giggs Backlash
The backlash is now happening against CTB and the Daily Mail are digging in deep. Sometimes you don't want to mess with a wounded media:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1390228/Ryan-Giggs-affair-Sordid-truth-family-man-image.html

And the real victim in all of this is his wife who cannot speak out because of the injunction:

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Ryan-Giggs-Imogen-Thomas-sex-cheat-super-injunction-Manchester-United-star-battling-to-save-marriage-following-public-unmasking-article740571.html

Imogen Thomas reveals she wanted to marry Giggs (or is that the other way round?):

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3599179/Imogen-Thomas-believed-that-Ryan-Giggs-wanted-to-MARRY-her.html

What a fine old mess Mr Schillings has got his client into:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/may/24/injunction-publicity-backfires-law-firm

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Just in case



The Daily Mail have a habit of being asked to delete webpages (like this one) so here is a copy of an interesting one for posterity.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1390219/Ryan-Giggs-wife-Stacey-shows-strain-super-injunction-leaving-family-home.html

Blackmail and the Guardian


The Guardian has asked a valid question. Should an injunction they have picked out and highlighted on their website have been taken out? It involves potential blackmail.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/56148143/Injunction-granted-to-OPQ-a-man

Take a look.

We are not lawyers but the Theft Act 1968 (s21) says this:

Blackmail.

(1)A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces; and for this purpose a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief—(a)that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and(b)that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand.

(2)The nature of the act or omission demanded is immaterial, and it is also immaterial whether the menaces relate to action to be taken by the person making the demand.

(3)A person guilty of blackmail shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

If someone blackmails you, you call 999. It is a criminal offence. Seeking an injunction appears wrong.

We know lots of lawyers read this blog (Schillings especially!) so would welcome a response ...

Human Rights Act 1998


We are humble agitators and our readers are way smarter than us which is how it should be. Here is a comprehensive comment from "anon" about the Human Rights Act 1998. We said it was EU generated, which is sort of true, but not according to anon who has put us right (reproduced without his/her permission because we don't know who they are):

"Anonymous said...

'the EU generated Human Rights Act 1998': you're clearly not a political or legal correspondent then. The HRA has nothing to do with the EU. It simply incorporates into UK law the European Convention on Human Rights which was produced in 1950 (a full 7 years before the EEC's existence) and which was largely written by British lawyers and civil servants. It applies to the Council of Europe, a totally different body to the EU. Britain has always been subject to the ECHR; the only difference is that cases can now be heard in UK courts.

It's also worth knowing that the Act was only intended to cover public authorities (government, police, etc). The reason why judges can hear 'horizontal' (fnar!) cases between private citizens/corporations is a result of the application by the Times to allow this in the Act's very first case i.e. newspapers themselves argued that judges should be allowed to use the Act to rule on disputes between the press and private individuals."

The HRA98 is pivotal to what is going on in the Courts re privacy and injunctions. As we said in a previous post, Ken Clarke needs to get rid of this act and replace it with a proper constitution.

Human Rights Act May Be Amended (bbc)

LATE TITTLE TATTLE NEWS
Alex Ferguson takes out oral injunction on journalist (bbc video)

BBC: Allegedly is the new mantra


It is only one word, but one that can save you from being sued.

On this blog, everything is alleged as gossip and tittle tattle always is. For real media outlets, the current Twitter anarchy is causing comment moderation to go into overdrive. 140 characters isn't much space and Allegedly is 9 characters so it unlikely Tweeters are going to start using this word very often.

The BBC has started to clamp down on comments they don't like; a form of censorship.

"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."

The BBC has also said it hands over inappropriate comments if asked by the Courts.

".. it's worth noting that the BBC has in the past been compelled by the courts to hand over the details of users accounts in the same way Twitter has been asked to do so in this case."

You have been warned. As we mentioned this morning, newspapers are going to stop comments because it is too dangerous. A gagged press and gagged little people. The upshot is Twitter useage will go up even more until that is closed down and we all go back to the pub, turn off the CCTV and gossip face to face.

The Defamation Act: Not fit for purpose


Ken Clarke has drafted a Defamation Act (latest draft March 2011) that seeks to address issues regarding Libel. Following the Privacy issues raised from the Ryan Giggs outing, it is clear this draft needs serious redrafting. In fact it would be better to abandon this all together, focus on rescinding the the EU generated Human Rights Act 1998 and defining a proper constitution like the one in the USA.

Exec Summary:

The Coalition Agreement indicates that measures to reverse the erosion of civil liberties and roll back state intrusion will include “The review of libel lawsto protect freedom of speech”. A range of concerns have been raised about the detrimental effects that the current law on libel is having on freedom of expression, particularly in relation to academic and scientific debate, the work
of non-governmental organisations and investigative journalism, and the extent to which this jurisdiction has become a magnet for libel claimants.

Three main reports have been published over the past 18 months in the context of debate on these issues: a report by English PEN and Index on Censorship, “Free Speech is Not for Sale”, was published in November 2009; a Libel Working Group set up by the Ministry of Justice which included media and claimant lawyers, academics, representatives from those campaigning for libel reform, and the scientific community published its report on 23 March 2010; and the Culture Media and Sport Select Committee published the report of its enquiry on press standards, privacy and libel on 24 February 2010.

Subsequently Lord Lester introduced a Private Member’s Bill in the new Parliament, and this received Second Reading on 9 July 2010.

The Government has taken the recommendations in all these reports and the contents of Lord Lester’s Bill into account in formulating the provisions in the draft Bill and this consultation paper. We have also carried out informal consultation with a range of interested parties including non-governmental organisations; the media and publishing industry; the legal profession; internet-based organisations; and representatives of the scientific community.

This consultation paper is divided into two main parts: consultation on proposals which have been included in the draft Bill at Annex A, and consultation on other issues which have not at this stage been included in the draft Bill.

Issues included in the draft Bill are as follows:

A new requirement that a statement must have caused substantial harm in order for it to be defamatory

A new statutory defence of responsible publication on matters of public interest

A statutory defence of truth (replacing the current common law defence of justification)

A statutory defence of honest opinion (replacing the current common law defence of fair/honest comment)

http://www.justice.gov.uk/docs/draft-defamation-bill-consultation.pdf

Outing the tittle tattle bean spillers


In the space of a couple of months, some words and phrases have become over used in relation to the super injunction debacle. We are guilty ourselves and we may have been party to bringing them to the table (e.g Injunctor isn't in the dictionary and we made the term up as a title to one of the pages on the blog; we also think the term "outing" was one of ours too)

Super Injunction

Spilling the beans

Outed

Tittle-tattle

Gagging order

Law is an ass

Dildo in the ass

Farce

@InjuctionSuper

Pentoville prison

CTB, ELP, TSE, ELO, NME, IBM, etc

Guess and tell

Scraping the barrel ...

Other news
Peter Andre has found a way of courting publicity by saying he would never take out a super injunction. Not that we would ever know of course.

http://www.nowmagazine.co.uk/celebrity-news/52665/peter-andre-i-d-never-have-taken-out-a-super-injunction-even-if-i-d-cheated-on-katie-price/1/

http://www.wordle.net/show/wrdl/3671957/super-injunction.blogspot.com

Celebs beware: Take out injunctions at your peril


Very good article in thedrum.co.uk looking at the CTB crisis from a PR perspective.

Giggs has unwittingly become a big news story for an extra marital affair. Most people just couldn't care less so what was he thinking in bringing in lawyers? This is a good quote that all footballers and celebrities out there should read and digest:

"...I’d tell him to pay his lawyers what he owes, thank them through gritted teeth for successfully making him the Anti Cause and then set aside whatever cash he was planning on spending to try and sue 75,000 Twitter users to pay off Imogen Thomas and prevent her selling an exclusive. He could then agree to his own exclusive with one big tabloid to talk about the whole legal battle, not the details of his affair, giving his fee to a suitable charity and trying to explain his thinking. This would hopefully give the media some kind of closure over the whole issue – which has become more about the super injunction than the alleged affair it concealed – and social media can move on to its next freedom of speech scalp for freedom of speech while he tries to repair his marriage.” Paul Smith, crisis management specialist for Citypress.

As Max Clifford has said, the injunction itself caused the affair to become headline news.

So what is privacy?


Yesterdays judgment on whether CTB's anonymity could be lifted following his outing in Parliament of Ryan Giggs as being CTB, the Court has decided to keep the injunction in place. This is one reason:

"It is important always to remember that the modern law of privacy is not concerned solely with secrets: it is also concerned importantly with intrusion". Intrusion in this sense includes harassment.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/1334.html

The problem the Courts have is in defining what is privacy.

The Calcutt Committee in 1990 said that, "nowhere have we found a wholly satisfactory statutory definition of privacy." But the committee was satisfied that it would be possible to define it legally and adopted this definition in its first report on privacy:

The right of the individual to be protected against intrusion into his personal life or affairs, or those of his family, by direct physical means or by publication of information.

The Human Rights Act 1998 says:

Article 8: Right to privacy

(1) Everyone has the right for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

(2) There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.


Tell us what you think a Privacy Law should be because it is clear there is no clarity in the courts or the Law and Jeremy Hunt needs some help.

http://www.privacilla.org/fundamentals/whatisprivacy.html

Daily Mail gets into big trouble


Remember when we posted this? We thought it was a bit close to the truth. Interesting how the Daily Mail have taken this off their website.

When Sir Frederick Goodwin graciously let us know who he was and that he was a banker (others may have different views), the Daily Mail who already knew of his mistress decided to give some clues. It was "heat of the moment journalism" and they gave us more clues that Goodwin had done who had said she was a "work colleague".

The Guardian seemed to have enjoyed Judge T knocking the world's second most popular online newspaper (along with an unknown ITN journalist):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/may/24/daily-mail-sir-fred-goodwin

The Daily Mail does have form though ...

Daily Mail outed Goodwin's mistress in March 2011

So what next? The closure of the Daily Mail? Paul Dacre sent to prison?

Inventor of the web says Twitter will be closed down


Rant starts.

Some people think this blog is about breaking the law and revealing tittle tattle for the purposes of supporting the UK media. Actually this is not the case at all and has so far only pre-empted the news agenda and takes its sources from the world wide web such as Twitter, forums and comments on the main media websites and this blog.

The purpose was always to lobby against private individuals and corporates from being allowed to pay for censorship by highlighting the ludicrous situation of injunctions being sought left right and center by low life rich people to cover up misdeeds. By all means protect witnesses, those whose lives are in danger and people involved in national security [UPDATE: and the vulnerable too]. Serious injunctions should be for the Home Secretary to decide, not a bunch of Judges who are interpreting some very badly drafted legislation in the Human Rights Act 1998 and trying to morally determine what they consider to be in the best interests of the little people (for a large fee of course).

It is up to the UK people to decide what they consider to be "private and not for public consumption" and their MPs are the people who should be tasked with putting in the appropriate laws. This appears to be what is happening right now as these petty injunctions are ripped apart.

But you have heard all this before in our other posts.

Rant Stops.

---

So the inventor of the WWW has said Twitter's days are numbered (as are those of LinkedIn and Facebook). He has a point because there is always something new and shiny around the corner. However his gripe is that people cannot go round and say what they think. He has a point here too because we are all constrained by a legal framework. However, opinion and gossip and speculation is what makes us as human beings work. Take that away and we lose our right to say anything and become dull insignificant wage slaves. I recall Hitler and Stalin were quite good at deciding their agenda by taking out those who disagreed.

If we are to clamp down on innuedo and lies then all newspapers must disable comments, must never publish letters, must never allow their journalists to tweet or be seen in public and have no opinion except fact censored by a few out of touch doddery rulers.

This sounds to me like communist China.

Which brings us onto, where is Ai WeiWei? This great artist has been detained for crimes against something unknown. Censorship does this. Someone has an opinion and a few people don't like it and they are taken off the streets.

Tim Berners Lee is a gentle academic who created the WWW to help academics share periodicals and papers. He never anticipated the homogenization of porn or the WWW becoming a global soap box. We cannot turn back time - we must adapt to the new world.

http://uk.ibtimes.com/articles/150897/20110524/twitter-tim-berners-lee-ryan-giggs-superinjunction-injunction-tweets.htm

TSE v ELP


Some people like to do Crosswords. Others Sudoku. Well there is now a new problem solving puzzle doing the rounds called "guess the injunction parties and what they have done."

The media have an unfair advantage in this game. They are passing around a list of 80 injunctions, like a bag of coke, while us little people are given small crusty crumbs. However, they cannot report without getting into trouble whereas we can guess and tell because nobody reads us and all blogs are lies anyway.

To start off with, we can look at an injunction posted online (although we do wonder if these injunctions are so important then why are parts of them put in the public domain?):

Here is an injunction that has recently been posted. TSE v ELP.

The injunction tell us TSE is a footballer and is married. ELP is a model. Now the Sun were a bit naughty and were reprimanded by the Judge for telling us more than was good for our health. So here are some more clues: She is 23 and doesn't really like football. He is an International premiership player. They both drink. He is a dad.

Giles Coren, a journalist, has indicated he knows who TSE is and the rest of us may know who ELP is.

New ace gags Sun on romps revelation (sun)

In our book this is tittle tattle of the lowest order. People have affairs all the time but in this case, because they can afford to stop anyone talking about it, they have paid for silence which the Courts have decided is necessary. This is surely a waste of the Courts time - they have more important issues to resolve than slapping a trivial injunction on a newspaper or two - but they do seem to like handing them out.

Your time starts now ...

Ryan Giggs is innocent



The weight of opinion is CTB is Ryan Giggs. But are we really sure? The man hasn't admitted it and nor has his alledged mistress, Imogen Thomas.

John Hemming who outed Ryan Giggs on BBC Parliament (as has been commented, the BBC should perhaps be given the award for outing the first name which is irritating as I had a tenner on the Evening Standard) maybe wrong. He, like the rest of us has been joining the wall of Tweets and assumed it was right.

This in the problem with injunctions. Too much secrecy, nod, nod, wink, wink.

[UPDATE 2 MINUTES LATER]

Max Clifford has confirmed it was Ryan Giggs. So there.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/twitter/8532449/Max-Clifford-Ryan-Giggs-affair-may-never-have-come-out-without-injunction.html

Monday, May 23, 2011

MP says yes, Courts say no


Ryan Giggs's injunction remains in place this evening. So we cannot mention it, discuss who the other party is or what the injunction is about.

So does this mean Tweeters and Bloggers will still go to prison? Who knows, but one thing is for certain; Imogen Thomas isn't going to be writing her life story just yet.

The UK is an odd place.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/23/ryan-giggs-injunction-mp

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/twitter/8531706/High-Court-bid-to-lift-footballer-injunction-fails.html

Sky win injunction super race


We thought it was the Guardian that outed Ryan Giggs first, but their lawyers were not fast enough it seems.

Thanks to those who commented and told us it was Sky who got there first.

In our now closed poll, Sky were lagging behind its stable mates the Sun and The News of the World, as well as the Daily Mail who were so close on many occasions, but managed to out tweet the rest and publish the John Hemming outing first.

This is all good fun and games. However, there still many who will refuse to utter the words of the footballer just because an MP did in the House of Commons. You see, it is still unclear as to whether we are allowed to report and comment on issues in the HoP that are part of an injunction.

This farce cannot continue though and the more names that are outed, the faster the Government will have to bring in better laws. But isn't Parliament on Whitsun recess soon?

So who will be next to be outed? Write your suggested names below but refer to the 3 letter code name ...and we shall run a poll.

John Hemming outs Giggs and Coren (youtube)

From Sky news...

The Guardian outs Ryan Giggs


So the poll we ran said the NOTW or Sun would out the first injunction name.

The Scottish Herald, despite being in Scotland, could have done so but put up a picture.

The Guardian have gone one better and said it was Ryan Giggs.

Who would have thought that eh?

The fact they were reporting what an MP said is even more interesting.

[We maybe wrong and there is money on this so please someone tell us the Guardian wasn't first]


http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2011/may/23/politics-live-blog

Giles Coren just cannot keep his mouth shut


Kabooooosh! Another alarming headline!

The media has its teeth around the gagging order debacle and is running away faster than we can keep up. (link to Giles Coren's now deleted tweets)

But that was the purpose of this blog when we launched 4 weeks ago plus 700,000 odd hits later. We wanted to agitate and stimulate and feel proud to have been part of forcing privacy decisions away from the Courts and back to Parliament.

When the news is pumped out so fast, as has been in the last day or so, the detail can often get lost.

So let us look at the injunction judgment from last Friday (read it here because nobody else is), News Group forced MNB to reveal himself as Sir Frederick Goodwin. However, Goodwin has refused to alter the injunction any further. Despite the highly paid QC's representing News Group, they were unable to force out the lady he had an affair with, although Goodwin did say it was a work colleague on the grounds of Public Interest.

In the meantime, the real world (the internet) had outed her a long time ago and just typing Fred Goodwin into Google tells you who it is. For those too lazy to type, here is a screen shot.

Back to the injunction.

The Telegraph didn't come out too well. It's recent reporting was full of errors and the Court was obviously delighted at pointing this out. But then what do you expect when the only people who know what is going on are a few Judges?

The bit that amused us though was this:

"All media organisations are aware that they (or any member of the public) served with or notified of the order are always free to apply to the court to have any injunction varied or discharged where the order restrains any publication or interferes with the right of freedom of expression. This is a right which media organisations exercise only very rarely."

Now I get the feeling the Courts are going to start saying "all members of the public are aware of all the injunctions because they are published on the internet and so all members of the public are party to the gagging order".

This means anyone who saw the photograph of a footballer who looked like Ryan Giggs at the weekend, or has read about Gareth Barry's infidelities and Giles Coren's Tweets or searched on Twitter about Didier Drogba or Kevin Nolan or the unrelated Stephen Nolan is party to information so confidential that the UK's security is in danger (has the MoD banned USD sticks yet?), its national well being under attack from an outbreak of paranoia and the lives of thousands are being put at risk with the upshot all the media will close down, all pubs burned, smartphone users jailed and all passports will be revoked in the name of protecting a few wealthy celebrities. That is our opinion but this is what the Judge said:

"Although many of those who obtain injunctions and anonymised orders to restrain the publication of private or confidential information are rich and famous, many others are not, and some are amongst the most vulnerable children: see the judgment of Baker J in W v M & Ors [2011] EWHC 1197 (COP) (12 May 2011) at para [44], and my judgment in TSE and ELP v NGN Ltd [2011] EWHC 1308 (QB)."

So there you go. It is important the vulnerable are protected but it seems these injunctions are being abused by the rich and famous to protect themselves from bad behaviour too.

The Court continued and said the lifting of the injunction was not in the public interest and the FSA which regulates banks was not impacted in not knowing about it. The FSA needs to understand what banks do to justify the huge bonuses paid to their people. That is the mantra we understand.

Uh? The FSA would have had no idea, like the rest of us, of this injunction and if they had found the injunction on the internet it is unlikely they would have said:

"MNB, isn't that Goodwin, CEO of RBS? His profession isn't noted so it cannot be him. Nothing to worry about then."

Please read the detail. It is quite alarming. The Courts are running this country. Check out "Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition" on wikipedia.

It is not a nice place to be.

http://www.fleetstreetfox.com/2011/05/do-not-read-this.html