Premiership Footballer Super Injunction

Sgt Pepper 64

This is a big story, not only for the alleged footballer involved (I'm sure everyone knows who it is?!) but also for the fact that Twitter itself is being sued.
What's is Boards position on this being discussed?
Can you rhyme or riddle the footballers name?
What does everyone think of these super injunctions?

tommyhaas

Closing the gate after the horse has bolted springs to mind

Vanbis

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

This is a big story, not only for the alleged footballer involved (I'm sure everyone knows who it is?!) but also for the fact that Twitter itself is being sued.
What's is Boards position on this being discussed?
Can you rhyme or riddle the footballers name?
What does everyone think of these super injunctions?

Everyone knows who it is, his name has popped up all over boards and new threads. I couldn't care about the story and certainly don't care super injunctions, it has nothing to do with football thread.

Helix

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

the fact that Twitter itself is being sued.

twitter is not being sued, theres simply a legal request in for the details of the people who posted the information, which i believe is a complete non starter, since although the british courts reckon they've got worldwide jurisdiction it'll apparently be impossible to even attempt to enforce

tommyhaas

Vanbis wrote: »

I couldn't care about the story and certainly don't care super injunctions

Eh, you're probably in wrong thread so

allthedoyles

It needs to be kept on hold until after the Champions League Final .

Helix

allthedoyles wrote: »

It needs to be kept on hold until after the Champions League Final .

why? it'll make no difference. everyone knows, and has known, who it is since april. the player has told his missus, and we can only assume everyone else who matters to him

Vanbis

tommyhaas wrote: »

Eh, you're probably in wrong thread so

What does everyone think of these super injunctions?

Eh, don't think so.

Gave my opinion.

tommyhaas

Vanbis wrote: »

Eh, don't think so.

Gave my opinion.

Yea that's fair enough, it just strikes me as unusual given that you don't care about the story or topic in general

I couldn't care about the story and certainly don't care super injunctions

I normally only post on threads I have an interest in. I wouldn't really see much of a point in taking the opposite approach

jaykay74

Print media in UK have it covered today pretty much. Not a football story.

http://lockerz.com/s/103816902

Also jokes about "gigs/giggs" and "Imagine/Imogen" get old quick

A Dub in Glasgo

Today's Sunday Herald front page in Scotland. Interesting decision for them to publish that, I assume the injunction only applies under English law

Sgt Pepper 64

Personally I'd like to see them used properly instead allowing people to hide their affairs.

This particular case is very much related to football. It reflects on a teams reputation.

Terry, Rooney, Cole etc have all been discussed. This is no different

jaykay74

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

Personally I'd like to see them used properly instead allowing people to hide their affairs.

This particular case is very much related to football. It reflects on a teams reputation.

Terry, Rooney, Cole etc have all been discussed. This is no different

True except the Terry case is slightly different in that it had an impact on England squads, captaincy etc. since there was a teammate involved. I think its the players rep thats damaged don't see how it affects the clubs rep ?

Sgt Pepper 64

jaykay74 wrote: »

True except the Terry case is slightly different in that it had an impact on England squads, captaincy etc. since there was a teammate involved. I think its the players rep thats damaged don't see how it affects the clubs rep ?

Because it gives the impression that the club has no control over its players.
A team these days is a global market brand, and it sends the wrong message when a player drinks/fights/cheats etc.

Helix

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

Because it gives the impression that the club has no control over its players.
A team these days is a global market brand, and it sends the wrong message when a player drinks/fights/cheats etc.

but a club DOES have no control over what a player does in their own private time. its not a football related manner, and it's got nothing to do with the club at the end of the day

jaykay74

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

Because it gives the impression that the club has no control over its players.
A team these days is a global market brand, and it sends the wrong message when a player drinks/fights/cheats etc.

Do you think a club will lose fans, sales or sponsors over this kind of thing

Da Shins Kelly

He should be outed and shamed. He deserves it. He knew what he was doing was wrong, so why should he be allowed to hide behind the courts now? Granted, he has a family and children don't need to be subjected to this, but he should have thought of that before giving one to whatsherface. He's a public figure, when stories like this come to the fore it's hardly surprising that it's splashed all over the news.

The superinjunction won't work anyway. It doesn't stretch to other countries. Like, Spanish or French newspapers could print the story, and what are the British courts gonna do? Nothing. They have no control over the freedom of press in other countries. They can't tell French or Spanish media what they can and can't say. And how are they gonne track down every person who mentions his name on Twitter? Twitter is a global thing, and the beauty of it is that there's no censorship on it. Giggs will just have to stand up, admit his guilt and take the rap, instead of trying to enforce censorship to save his own skin.

tommyhaas

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

Because it gives the impression that the club has no control over its players.
A team these days is a global market brand, and it sends the wrong message when a player drinks/fights/cheats etc.

Once they're not breaking the law, it's nothing to do with the club. The exception obviously there is when it involves a team mates wife/girlfriend

A footballer is employed by his club to play football. What he does outside of that, once legal is up to him

Helix

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

He should be outed and shamed

no he shouldnt

its his private life and it's got feck all to do with the general public

superinjunctions are nonsense, and i dont agree with them at all, but at the same time i think its ridiculous that this type of stuff is deemed of any relevance to anyone apart from the people involved. if someone off here had an affair would it be fair game to lob up a sticky across boards about it?

Helix

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

The superinjunction won't work anyway. It doesn't stretch to other countries. Like, Spanish or French newspapers could print the story, and what are the British courts gonna do? Nothing. They have no control over the freedom of press in other countries. They can't tell French or Spanish media what they can and can't say.

thats the thing, the british courts claim global jurisdiction, so in their opinion what they say goes in any country across the world

Da Shins Kelly

jaykay74 wrote: »

True except the Terry case is slightly different in that it had an impact on England squads, captaincy etc. since there was a teammate involved. I think its the players rep thats damaged don't see how it affects the clubs rep ?

Do you think that if, say, Messi was caught up in some illicit scandal that it would have some affect on the Barcelona team? I'm just asking out of interest. I think, personally, that it probably would given the fact that he's so completely associated with Barcelona and is also considered 'the best player in the world'. He's their prized asset, and it's not just the fact that he's brilliant, it's also to do with his character, the fact that he's believed to be so modest and genuine. If he was involved in something he shouldn't be, I think it would affect Barcelona as well as his own rep.

adox

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

Because it gives the impression that the club has no control over its players.
A team these days is a global market brand, and it sends the wrong message when a player drinks/fights/cheats etc.

Are you taking the pIss? You think a club can control players personal lives?

Sgt Pepper 64

Helix wrote: »

thats the thing, the british courts claim global jurisdiction, so in their opinion what they say goes in any country across the world

But twitter is US owned. And the US hold up freedom of speech over privacy

Helix

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

But twitter is US owned. And the US hold up freedom of speech over privacy

thats why there's a lot of legal nonsense surrounding it, and why the whole thing will ultimately fall apart

Da Shins Kelly

Helix wrote: »

no he shouldnt

its his private life and it's got feck all to do with the general public

superinjunctions are nonsense, and i dont agree with them at all, but at the same time i think its ridiculous that this type of stuff is deemed of any relevance to anyone apart from the people involved. if someone off here had an affair would it be fair game to lob up a sticky across boards about it?

That's not the same thing. No one here is a public figure (to my knowledge). I don't agree with censorship and this superinjunction rubbish is treading a very fine line. Yes, it is his personal life, but he is a public figure, so what is he expecting? That's the nature of the media these days and the more he tries to hold back this story, the worse it's gonna be for him when it finally blows.

Sgt Pepper 64

jaykay74 wrote: »

Do you think a club will lose fans, sales or sponsors over this kind of thing

Absolutely. There a investments known as Ethical investments and certainly Middle east groups etc whould be put off as they wouldnt want to be seen linked to this behaviour.

The players are bound to a moral/off field code

LuckyLloyd

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

He should be outed and shamed. He deserves it. He knew what he was doing was wrong, so why should he be allowed to hide behind the courts now? Granted, he has a family and children don't need to be subjected to this, but he should have thought of that before giving one to whatsherface. He's a public figure, when stories like this come to the fore it's hardly surprising that it's splashed all over the news.

The superinjunction won't work anyway. It doesn't stretch to other countries. Like, Spanish or French newspapers could print the story, and what are the British courts gonna do? Nothing. They have no control over the freedom of press in other countries. They can't tell French or Spanish media what they can and can't say. And how are they gonne track down every person who mentions his name on Twitter? Twitter is a global thing, and the beauty of it is that there's no censorship on it. Giggs will just have to stand up, admit his guilt and take the rap, instead of trying to enforce censorship to save his own skin.

French laws are far more restrictive on issues like this, and French media outlets generally avoid stories like this like the plague.

Da Shins Kelly

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

French laws are far more restrictive on issues like this, and French media outlets generally avoid stories like this like the plague.

Well, I don't know the laws in France regarding stuff like this, but you know what I mean. I don't understand how a British court can influence the freedom of press in other countries. It's pretty much impossible, no?

Frisbee

Can't talk about it I'm afraid.