Oh dear -

- a certain footballers name and picture is plastered all over tomorrows papers.

Is this a victory for the people over unacceptable interferance by judges with the right of free speech ?

The injunction remains in place, but first Twitter users and now the press are putting two fingers up to the courts. 

 

 

Comments
davidwinch's picture

Parliamentary privilege

davidwinch | | Permalink

Apparently there remains an injunction in place which prevents the publication of the footballer's name.

But one is not normally prevented from quoting the proceedings in the House of Commons in which an MP, debating privacy laws, said "Mr Speaker, with about 75,000 people having named Ryan Giggs it is obviously impracticable to imprison them all."

Ain't the law funny!

David

carnmores's picture

something else to amuse us ........

carnmores | | Permalink

LCJ NEUBERGER HAS JUST ABOUT MISSED THE POINT AND SCHILLINGS APPEAR TO HAVE NO IDEA , HOW THEY COULD POSSIBLE ADVISE THEIR CLIENT AS THEY APPEAR TO HAVE DONE IS BEYOND ME, SELF SERVING PERHAPS?

THE DISCLOSURE IN PARLIAMENT RAISES ONE IMPORTANT POINT , THE REPORTING OF PARLIAMENT IS STILL SUBJECT APPARENTLY TO CONSTRAINTS - WHY THIS IS SO I DO NOT UNDERSTAND - THERE IS A PUBLIC GALLERY SURELY EVERY CITIZEN SHOULD BE ABLE TO HEAR WHAT IS SAID WHETHER THERE IN PERSON OR OVER THE MEDIA

THIS IS A CASE OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS GONE MAD - THE JUDGES HAVE STRAYED TOO MUCH INTO LAW MAKING IN THIS CASE AND ARE JUSTIFIABLY IN MY OPINION NOW OPEN TO SCRUTINY - IN THIS CASE THE SCRUTINY CAN ONLY IMMEDIATELY BE CARRIED OUT BY DISCLOSURE 

PARLIAMENT IS PRIMUS INTER PARES AND THE JUDICIARY SHOULD REMEMBER THAT AND ALSO START LIVING IN THE NEW TECHNOLOGICAL ENVIROMENT - IE INJUNCTIONS DONT COVER SCOTLAND / US OR ANY WHERE ELSE , HOW WOULD WE LIKE IT IF THE BOOT WAS ON THE OTHER FOOT 

POWER TO THE PEOPLE OR MOB RULE?

 

cymraeg_draig's picture

.

cymraeg_draig | | Permalink

In my view there are serious issues here.

I could care less if some overpaid footballer has been playing away from home, although looking at the lady in question I think he could have done better :)

What I DO care about is what else is being kept from us ?  Politicians taking out injunctions to hide their murky past or dubious dealings perhaps ?  Who knows ?

What angers me is that this 3rd rate player can hide away his dirty little secrets, but, the ordinary man accused of, say, rape, gets his name plastered all over the papers whether he is guilty or not, and he has no chance of getting an injunction to protect his good name.  Sheer hypocrisy.

As for Mr Giggs - what a fool. If he had said nothing this non-story would have blown over in a few days, but now he has ensured he will never be allowed to live it down.  What a plonker.

 

Donald2000's picture

Yes the player has been named

Donald2000 | | Permalink

As the MP came straight out with the name without hesitation, I can only conclude that the law is a complete ass. Everyone now knows who it is, the injunction is totally broken, there is no point to it and the person who took out the injunction whom out of a last vestige of respect I shall not name, is absolutely on a hiding to nothing.

Disagree with CD

Stephen Morris | | Permalink

 Not sure I agree with you, CD, about the lady in question. I have only one thing to say on this matter, "PHWOAR!"

cymraeg_draig's picture

.

cymraeg_draig | | Permalink

Take a look at a shot from behind Stephen - if she rode a bike it would require a "warning wide load" sign on the back.

 

weaversmiths's picture

INJUNCTIONS SUPER OR OTHERWISE

weaversmiths | | Permalink

 <a certain footballers name and picture is plastered all over tomorrows papers." > C_D.

What a fuss over a dimwit who kicks a ball around for a living and cant keep what little he has in his trousers.  I am really not interested.  It just keeps the gutter press and magazines such as OK in business, but I do agree that all this super injunction business is dangerous. It would be far better to stop guttersnipe women from kissing and telling, they were only ever in it for the money anyway,   then we wouldn't need any super injunctions.  I am sure that the dirty little twisters that call themselves MPs are even now looking into the possibility of getting away with all their various indiscretions and I dont mean the ones of a sexual nature. - if you get my drift.

 

TheAncientOne

 

Super-injunctions

alistair_king | | Permalink

I've got to disagree with the ancient one.

I'm not sure I care about some actor or footballer keeping his mistakes a secret. I feel sorry for his family but wouldn't bother reading it in the tabloids.

On the other hand there are some fundamental principles at stake here!
(1) At the moment super-injunctions give one law for the rich and a different law for everyone else. Case in point - Imogen was unable to defend herself (rightly or wrongly) from claims of blackmail.
(2) Fred the Shred - did his activities distract him at a critical point during the financial collapse? WHat judgement was he exercising when his lover was promoted twice? Was it on merit? Did his superinjunction prevent the regulator from investigating?
(3) A very very rich man who is a major contributor to the labour party has an superinjunction. I know who. I don't think it is in the public interest for this to be hidden. Go google!!!
(4) Trafigura - 'nough said
(5) Freedom of speech
(6) Supremacy of parliament and reporting of parliament

Additionally some superinjunctions in the family courts appear to be in existence to bully parents and prevent disclosure of misbehaviour by social services and resulting miscarriages of justice. Some of these specifically prohibit the parents from discussing their case with their MP. For example, in one case police came and searched a house and pretty much trashed it. Same day social services came and took the children into care on the grounds that the house was a mess. There are a number of similar abuses - several disclosed by Hemming in parliament.

davidwinch's picture

"Naming Private Ryan"

davidwinch | | Permalink

A rather good headline allegedly appearing in a national newspaper today.  It tickled me.

As to the point of the super injunction, it was allegedly to protect the wife and children of Mr Giggs.  One commentator suggests that his concern for his family might have been better expressed by keeping his trousers on.

David

Mr Giggs

The Black Knight | | Permalink

It is hardly crime of the century, not even a crime !!

The MP in my opinion abused parliamentary privilege, disgraceful.

The Rich do have more access to the law than the poor, and better cars, houses and women, the rest of us are jealous thats why we like to see them have some pain as well, still not right though.

Why should he not have a right to keep his private life private ? Now where have I heard something similar ?

Perhaps there was a genuine concern for the feelings of the mrs, I am sure no one sets out to hurt in these situations.

cymraeg_draig's picture

Pratts in wigs

cymraeg_draig | | Permalink

Attorney General Dominic Grieve has now uttered what anounts to threats agains some 60-70,000 people.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1390219/Super-injunctions-Twitter-users-warned-theyre-rude-shock.html

In theory the courts could fine or jail some 70,000 people, AND they could do it in secret. In cases like this reporting would be forbidden because of the original injunction, there would be no right to trial by jury, and anyone disclosing that someone had been jailed, could themselves be thrown in jail too.

ALL IN SECRET.

Sound a bit like communist Russia, Iran, North Korea, etc ?

Whilst this has been over the pathetic attempts by a 2nd rate footballer to cover up his dirty little secrets, I believe there is now a momentum behind this which will grow. People are demanding openess and honesty, and I dont think the government will be able to withstand the demands for an overhaul of this discretited practice of protecting the rich and making justice dependant on the ability to pay.

 

bring out the pigs

oldersimon | | Permalink

Some of them of the male chauvinist variety - there are some distinctly unprofessional comments here. 

And I don't think we can take seriously anyone who thinks Ryan Giggs is a second rate footballer - especially from a Welshman. Giggs is Wales' best footballer since John Charles.

cymraeg_draig's picture

.

cymraeg_draig | | Permalink

Some of them of the male chauvinist variety - there are some distinctly unprofessional comments here.

And I don't think we can take seriously anyone who thinks Ryan Giggs is a second rate footballer - especially from a Welshman. Giggs is Wales' best footballer since John Charles.

 

Posted by oldersimon on Tue, 24/05/2011 - 10:11

 

That may be your opinion, it is not mine.  Giggs was at his best a decent winger, no more, and is now well past his sell by date.

Exactly what comments are "chauvinist"?  I fail to see any.

Similarly exactly what do you consider to be "unprofessional" ? 

 

Jon Stow's picture

Disrespect

Jon Stow | | Permalink

No, we are not talking about a second rate footballer. He is a top class player who has always also been very well behaved on the pitch even if one might think otherwise about his off-the-pitch playing away.

The Courts have got themselves into a difficult position with this one and have been made to look foolish in the modern on-line world. Since Parliament will certainly be looking at sorting out the whole mess and the Prime Minister has already said that the current position is unsatisfactory, it is disappointing that an MP has used Parliamentary Privilege to name the player. Whatever we think of the Courts, until the law is fixed by Parlaiment as a whole, they should be respected, otherwise we would have chaos in many areas.

Out of control

mgh | | Permalink

Judges have always created new law, but this time they have gone too far. They are out of touch, and out of control. No-one should be prevented from talking to their MP. It should not be a criminal offence to embarass a footballer. It is pointless and brings the law into disrepute to try to injunct the entire planet when you only have jurisdiction in England and Wales. What important matters are we being denied knowledge of?

Parliament needs to legislate quickly, to restore proper balance and safeguards, since the judges seem incapable of doing so.

2nd or 3rd rate

The Black Knight | | Permalink

I think Mr Giggs is going up in C_D estimation ? earlier he was a 3rd rate footballer.lol

If the state is using this law to cover up its despicable rules and behaviour against the people then that is a different matter.

Surely the Ryan Giggs story is a deliberate attempt to divert attention away from the real issues. (sounded like state sponsored child abuse earlier - Alastairs comment) ????? Yet more clever political spin ? A good day to bury bad news approach ?

How can it be a democracy if you have no idea of the, rules and powers you have voted for and entrusted to your government.

A bit different to making a fuss about someone falling in love, even if it was with the money ! lol

cymraeg_draig's picture

Magna Carta clause 40 - 'To no one will we sell, to no one will

cymraeg_draig | | Permalink

. unless of course they get paid lots of money for kicking a bag of wind about and will pay us lot's of dosh - then they can do what they want and cover it up.

 

Jon - I dont think the MP did show disrespect - the disrespect was that shown by the judges to the public and to the very foundations of our law.

 

mgh - I agree, what else is being hidden from us?  Are MPs (and ex Prime Ministers) hiding murky secrets ? 

 

On a practical note - the injunction doesnt name Giggs, so exactly how is anyone supposed to know whether they have broken it or not ?

 

 

 

Time to open a Twitter account

alistair_king | | Permalink

I've always avoided it. Thought it a waste of time to follow celebs on twitter and get their latest vaporous nonsense.

But this bad law has got me somewhat annoyed (and engaged my roundhead instincts). In the middle East when people used twitter to stand for freedom we applauded them. Now the attorney general is threatening people with jail.

For the child protection issues, Christopher Booker has been highlighting these in the Telegraph website.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/8470199/The-judge-has-forbidden-anyon...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8363501/...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8455841/...

There are many more of these. And of course Mr Hemmings has discussed a few under his privilege in Parliament. This is actually the main focus of his campaign against these gagging orders. Not footballers antics.

VAT on newspaper sales?

Stephen Morris | | Permalink

 Might slapping VAT on newspaper sales dampen public demand for the gossip that newspapers sell as news? Currently newspapers are zero rated. Slapping a 20% VAT rate on them would increase the purchase cost to the consumer by 16.67%. Such a move would help government finances and assist the newspapers in their pursuit of the public nterest. The public interest is oft cited by the Press to justify its activities and reporting.

I wonder whether there is a difference between the Imogen Thomas case and that of Max Moseley's. In Imogen's case, she wanted to tell her story to the press. I don't see why she should be forbidden from doing that. I know she was a woman scorned and there were allegations of blackmail. The blackmail allegation is something for the Police to deal with. I wonder whether the injuntion would be removed once a Police investigation had concluded. An interesting test, I suggest.

 Moseley's case was different because no one approached the press to provide details of his orgies. To get this story, the press must have used surreptitios surveillance techniques. There was no public interest in reporting Moseley's orgies. To my mind, it is the use of surveillance technicques on "fishing expeditions" by the press that might engage privacy law (where it exists).

The other curious aspect of these episodes is the invocation of Article 8 HRA (Right of Respect to Private and Family Life). HRA places obligations on the State, not on private organisations or individuals. In other words, the obligation to protect the privacy of citizens applies to the activities of the State, not to the activities of the press which in this country is not an arm of the State. I don't believe there is a privacy law in statute, apart from the Data Protection Act, that justifies the granting of injunctions. If privacy exists at common law then perhaps the Judiciary has too much discretion as to whom it grants injunctions.

And yes, the secrecy that still surrounds the family courts and the unaccountable, almost God-like power that this secrecy can confer on Social Services, should be condemned.

 

listerramjet's picture

there is no doubt

listerramjet | | Permalink

that Ryan Giggs is one of the best footballers of his generation. Don't need parliamentary privelege to have an opinion on this - but whatever, facts speak louder than opinions!

listerramjet's picture

where is the right to free speech?

listerramjet | | Permalink

Judges make judgements based on the law of the land. We don't have a "freedom of speech" act, and nor do we have a constitution that guarantees this. I think you are mixing us up with our cousins across the pond?

listerramjet's picture

I think what amuses me most about this story

listerramjet | | Permalink

is the extent to which the sub-plots are being spun by the chaterati, based on nothing more than hot air. Presumably because of the injunction it is not possible to verify the injunction story. Not just the lawyers making a packet out of this!

cymraeg_draig's picture

.

cymraeg_draig | | Permalink

Might slapping VAT on newspaper sales dampen public demand for the gossip that newspapers sell as news?

 

 

Posted by Stephen Morris on Tue, 24/05/2011 - 10:58

 

Is it gossip ?

Surely where someone has deliberately (and it seems dishonestly) sought to portray themselves as "upstanding clean living citizens" to promote their careers, then if they are found to be lying hypocrits it is a matter of public interest.

I also find it outragious that he could hide his identity, yet the lady involved could be openly vilified.  This reminds me of the perverse court rulings where women make false rape accusations, they are convicted of making false accusations (so were demonsrtably not rape victims) yet their identity is still protected (as has happened in many cases).  One has to wonder about the abilities of judges who make such rulings.

Free speech

alistair_king | | Permalink

Here's reporting of an injunction discussed in parliament...

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110330/02030513689/bizarre-uk-free-sp...

Timeline: a history of free speech
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/feb/05/religion.news

billgilcom's picture

Vilified

billgilcom | | Permalink

Come on C_D surely talking about a view from behind is more hurtful than other comments. In any case either I've got the wrong Imogen on my desktop or you need to visit Specsavers. LOL

davidwinch's picture

Hot tubbing

davidwinch | | Permalink

Just received an email from a contact headed "Hot tubbing".

Opened it excitedly to find a rather dry discussion of the use of multiple expert witnesses in civil court cases.  Not a mention of Imogen anywhere!

(Anyway, if I may be non-pc for a moment, Mrs Giggs is much better looking.  Ryan, why go out for a burger when there is steak at home?)

David

carnmores's picture

VAT on newspapers is simply ridiculous

carnmores | | Permalink

what next VAT on books?   no we should be trying to remove VAT on e-books instead - we should encourage high quality reading by all.

going back to giggsy - he has always traded on his position as being squeaky clean etc and used the same no doubt to increase his commercial profile so its right and proper that this veneer be swept away.

would he really have won sports personality of the year in 2009 if this had been known in principle

carnmores's picture

David - steak or hamburger

carnmores | | Permalink

maybe it something to do with the gerkins?

ShirleyM's picture

Unfair justice

ShirleyM | | Permalink

I also find it outragious that he could hide his identity, yet the lady involved could be openly vilified................

Posted by cymraeg_draig on Tue, 24/05/2011 - 11:26

I, too, fail to see the justice here. I am not saying she should be protected, but there should be protection for both, or none at all. I personally would say none at all. If you live in the public eye then you should expect the 'eye' to be upon you.

 

Back on topic...

WhichTyler | | Permalink

Justice Eady's judgement is available here http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/1232.html

and makes interesting reading...

Interesting reading

alistair_king | | Permalink

 But I think it would have been more appropriate if the original injunction had covered Imogen too. If I understand the judgemtn correctly, the judge appears to have condemned her as guilty without her actually being tried. Plus she has now been through trial by media.

She may well have brought it on her own head. The allegation may be true. But it is unproven and so far as I can see, she has effectivley been denied defense.

Did she rely on the newspapers council rather than employing her own? 

cymraeg_draig's picture

.

cymraeg_draig | | Permalink

I go back to one of my original points - the injunction does not refer to Giggs by name, so how can anyone be guilty of braking an injunction if the injunction does not name the person protected by it?

I could quite easily write about Giggs affair in the genuine belief that the injunction must apply to someone else - or are all footballers covered by it?

And I agree with your comment David, except I wouldnt refer to it as a choice between steak or burgers - more like steak and corned beef.

 

 

why not eat both

The Black Knight | | Permalink

You are only here once ! lol

 

On tonight's menu

alistair_king | | Permalink

Anyone for spam? 

carnmores's picture

one other thing David

carnmores | | Permalink

its called photoshop

Spam ?

The Black Knight | | Permalink

Spam ? Now hold on a minute ! there is a limit you know ! lol

 

cymraeg_draig's picture

.

cymraeg_draig | | Permalink

It seems she has an offer to sell her story - I bet there are a lot of footballers sweating right now.

carnmores's picture

that'll be the money

carnmores | | Permalink

leaking out of their pores

cymraeg_draig's picture

Its getting nasty -

cymraeg_draig | | Permalink

Its just been reported (BBC 5 Live) that a bunch of thugs wearing masks turned up outside Gigg's house, and proceeded to attack and vandalise the cars of waiting journalists and photographers.

Has Giggs started employing thugs?  Or are these a bunch of sick Man United fams taking their warped view of the law into their own hands?

It has also been reported that Feguson told a reporter who asked him about Giggs that he was "banned from Fridays pre match interviews".  Ferguson has now been slapped down by FIFA who pointed out that the pre match press conference is a FIFA event and Ferguson cannot decree who may attend, and must attend himself and answer all questions put to him or risk FIFA taking action against him and his club. 

 

Another one

WhichTyler | | Permalink

here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/1308.html this time from Justice Tugenhadt, which includes a wider review of injunctions which contradicts some recent (self interested) press coverage

Salacious

alistair_king | | Permalink

There is definitely an angle to the presses involvement. They just want to print salacious stories to sell more copies. But this is a distraction from the serious underlying issues with the HRA and with the use of gagging orders.

Look at other problems with the HRA - when we can't deport terrorists, or when a burglar can attempt to have his prison sentence revoked because it undermines his right to have a family life, we have a problem.

When Fred the Shred or Trafigura can get an injunction which is clearly against public interest we have a problem. And when there are serious issues with some of the things happening in family courts and in some social services units which can be hidden, we have a problem. Do look at the links I gave earlier. Imagine if it was in the criminal courts and the defendent was forbidden to speak or put evidence in his defence and was gagged to prevent him seeking outside help or contacting his MP. Imagine if legal aid restricted him to solicitors who were favourable to this regime and assumed guilt.

I think we need a better mechanism - on one hand prevent the subversion of freedom that crept in over the last decade whilst on the other hand preventing the worst excesses of the press.

cathygrimmer's picture

On a lighter note!

cathygrimmer | | Permalink

Penned this poem off before I went to my writers' group meeting yesterday, for a laugh! Many of our members are well into retirement but it says something about this case that they all knew who I was talking about - whereas if news of the 'affair' had just appeared in the Sun for a couple of days right at the start, I doubt most of them would have known about it. An own goal, perhaps, for Mr Giggs?

{Edit - sorry, whatever I do, it doesn't come out looking like a poem. But it still reads as one)

Cathy

Have you heard the news today?  Something happened but I can't say  Who did it or what it was  Or where with who or how because  A judge has said that we can't know  Whatsisname slept with so-and-so.  The newspapers are pretty peeved  The footballer has been reprieved  Just 'cause it might cause him distress  If on his knees he must confess  To his lovely wife and say  'Sorry, dear, I played away'.     But the newspapers are mainly vexed  'Cause the news is out by tweet and text  Everyone's become a Google sleuth  To see who has suppressed the truth.  So widespread is news of his shame  Even the PM knows his name!   Worse - now the man's so bitter  He's threatening to sue Twitter  Now the public are incensed  A a challenge has commenced  Is it really the judiciary's function  To grant this rat a superinjunction?     Wait - what do I hear on the BBC?  His name's been said by an MP  In the House! So now it's out  Extinguished any lingering doubt.  So do you think that Giggsy is a git?  Or, like me, just don't give a ....damn?  

 

 

In bad taste (worse than spam)

alistair_king | | Permalink

The anonymous premiership footballer and Imogen Thomas walk into a bar. But for legal reasons, I cannot finish this joke.

The Law Society named Ryan Giggs as client of the year following the £200,000+ worth of fees which have proven to be a total waste.

I went on Mastermind the other day and chose Manchester United as my specialist subject. John Humphreys said question 1.. Which Man U player is known as the Welsh Wizard? I said i couldn't say - he said Correct question 2....

I'm sweating like an anonymous premiership footballer watching his wife set up a twitter account.

Superinjunctions are going to be renamed gigging orders. I can't Imogen why?

Old Greying Accountant's picture

Various, out yesterday missed a lot of frantic activity

Old Greying Acc... | | Permalink

Vat on newspapers, no problem with that, hardly "high quality" reading Carnmores!

Mrs Giggs v Ms Thomas. each to their own, and as they say, don't judge a book by its cover.

Mr Giggs, in his day was a first rate player, but as CD states, at 37 he is well past his prime as the stats below show:

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/player/_/id/8853/ryan-giggs?cc=5739

As to the injustices, Mr Pareto had the answer. Was ever thus and for ever will be, get over it! 

Add comment
Log in or register to post comments
Group: Money laundering and crime
A group for discussing issues relating to suspected money laundering and other crime