nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Super Injunctions: names revealed?

ElleEm

Imogen Thomas from Big Brother 7 is in a few magazines at the minute selling a story about how she had a 6 month affair with a married Premier League footballer. He got an injunction so his name can't be released and that seems to be the focus of her stories.

I can't stand these Kiss and Tell types, and the link below alleges that she had never planned to sell a story about the affair, yet she's all over the place the last week. She's even gonna be on This Morning tomorrow.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2011/04/24/model-imogen-thomas-bounces-back-after-heartache-of-footballer-affair-91466-28573340/

Rumour has is the bloke in question is Ryan Giggs.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

gman2k

I have heard rumours (which are also known within Man U) that Barcelona will try and name and shame a Man U player re the super injunction issue before next weekends big game!

temply

gman2k wrote: »

I have heard rumours (which are also known within Man U) that Barcelona will try and name and shame a Man U player re the super injunction issue before next weekends big game!

ALSO... Anyone see on twitter the name of an Irish Player who plays in the premiership with his 3 superinjunctions?!!!

I was shocked when I saw that, big family man I thought. :cool:

LizT

temply wrote: »

ALSO... Anyone see on twitter the name of an Irish Player who plays in the premiership with his 3 superinjunctions?!!!

I was shocked when I saw that, big family man I thought. :cool:

Link?

temply

lizt wrote: »

Link?

do a search under #superinjunction on twitter and you'll find out soon enough

Richard Dower

recyclebin wrote: »

Giggs is apparently suing Twitter. I'd prefer if he concentrated on Barcelona next Saturday to be honest.

Twitter will laugh at him, the injunction only includes the UK, Twitter are not responsible for content posted by their users, the T&C have them well covered.

Richard Dower

I think very soon Imogen will call a press conference and publically out him, she's loving the publicity!....can you imagine the public outrage if they tried to jail her for seven years?

I'd say that would put an end to injunctions, they'll be uninforceable then...the media no doubt would follow Imogens lead and out everyone else. Imogen is laughing all the way to the bank, she's already been offered I Am Celebrity, she's had more publicity from this then anything previous!

wilser

temply wrote: »

ALSO... Anyone see on twitter the name of an Irish Player who plays in the premiership with his 3 superinjunctions?!!!

I was shocked when I saw that, big family man I thought. :cool:

who is it? all i can find is robi keane, rio ferd & mic owen

temply

wilser wrote: »

who is it? all i can find is robi keane, rio ferd & mic owen

first 1 wins the prize

Condatis

Dymo wrote: »

These injunctions only count in the UK and have no ruling over twitter as it's an American company and I'm sure it's no problem talking about it in Ireland providing the information is correct

Well actually as it's a different jurisdiction what you say does not even have to be correct. The only constraints in that case are your conscience and the rules of the medium on which you are publishing.

The British courts have no extra-territorial reach in this regard. That's just as well; otherwise there would be a precedent for, say, Nigerian courts to impose restrictions on what is said here about allegations of fraud.

Hootanany

http://twitter.com/#!/search/Gab%20Marcotti%3F

Some Scottish paper has a photo:cool:

ibarelycare

Hootanany wrote: »

http://twitter.com/#!/search/Gab%20Marcotti%3F

Some Scottish paper has a photo:cool:

Woah! Can they be sued for that?

Michellenman

303989105.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJF3XCCKACR3QDMOA&Expires=1306065053&Signature=0%2FIrjMC4JAZTMUE9i21Q2CVu5Ao%3D

Here's the pic

edit: :eek: the host deleted it!

Sorry!

gman2k

Michellenman wrote: »

Here's the pic

303973020.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJF3XCCKACR3QDMOA&Expires=1306067659&Signature=XLX9cZdSHjIF2L5tKRO3tj2ZtP4%3D

Biggins

ibarelycare wrote: »

Woah! Can they be sued for that?

If they can, they will be on on a long, LONG list of sites and news organisations to sue!
Some of them I've listed in on my own site.

EKRIUQ

Who's this?

Biggins

Well if you can't really guess, here is a clue from America, care of CNN: http://cnnconsumernews.com/2011/05/20/ryan-giggs/
UPDATE: Their site crashed due to high numbers visiting. Here is what they showed: http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/6089/20110522173102.jpg
* See text below picture.

And as for who is being threatened already? See: http://twitter.com/#!/welsh_gas_doc
(Hint: Supposedly Boy George and Piers Morgan)
Not that the Daily Mail make it un-obvious!: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1389689/Super-injunction-footballer-alleged-affair-Imogen-Thomas-revealed-newspaper.html

As for the TSE English journalist being chased about by another player trying to keep his infidelity secret, Twitter again is your friend or: http://twitter.com/#!/guidofawkes

mcmoustache

I normally couldn't give a crap about these people but the fact that they went to court to prevent people (including me) from speaking freely has made me dig around for the gossip.

These superinjunctions are sinister. They are a legal way to silence fair comment for those who can afford it. They are a means of hiding bad behaviour that should probably be exposed. Libel and slander is one thing but stifling the truth is criminal.

Thankfully, the judges who grant them, the lawyers who apply for them and the "stars" who want them seem to have forgotten about the internet. They will all be exposed and end up looking like bigger eejits.

And it serves them right in my opinion.

Richard Dower

I belive in the right to privacy, it's none of our business who is shagging who!....the ONLY reason these injuctions wanted to be overturned is trash like The sun can profit and sell newspapers. There is NO public interest in knowing what footballer cheated on his wife.

What if the tables were turned?....what if journalists were indulging in bad behaviour?....would they like the intimate details splashed over the tabloids?....no!
This is about money, about generating stories to fill the trashy mags and papers.

Imogen is a fame and money w&ore....she WANTED her name out to cash in + raised profile, future shoots and tv work, she's no victim!

neveah

I see what you are saying Richard but I suppose the papers would argue that these footballers/celebrities are looked up to by their fans and they promote themselves through advertising deals in a certain way so if they do something that goes against the image they portray then it's the paper's duty to expose these lies and false image to us the public.

Famous people know that they are playing with fire when they have affairs, it could be exposed at any time and their reputation ruined (prime example Tiger Woods - in his case would you blame the several women who spoke out about him or would you blame his own inability to keep it in his pants??)

In this particular case, trying to sue Twitter has backfired in massive proportions! He's probably better off to come clean about it now but with the big game coming up next week I doubt his manager would be too happy about all the negative press.

On a side note - I think people are sick of these footballers getting paid ridiculous amounts of money, acting like they are untouchable and can do what they want.

Kojak

EKRIUQ wrote: »

Who's this?

God almighty, that is pretty pointless. Anyone with even a remote interest in soccer would be able to tell who that is.

I guess the paper put up that "cover" just to get around the injunction. :rolleyes:

Biggins

Editorial in the English Times today (Monday) by the top editor.
Source: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/leaders/article3028434.ece

A Scottish newspaper, the Sunday Herald, has published a clearly identifiable photograph of a Premier League footballer with his eyes blacked out, claiming him to be at the centre of a high-profile court attempt to silence allegations about his private life. Given that to do so could lead to his identity becoming known, some lawyers would argue that this newspaper could be in contempt of court for having identified that newspaper. You may need to read that sentence twice.

It gets worse. A high-profile journalist on a leading British newspaper has made a comment on Twitter about a Premier League footballer for which he, or she, now risks being prosecuted for contempt of court. For legal reasons, The Times is not at liberty to name the footballer, or the journalist, or the newspaper for which he, or she, works. This would remain true even if The Times was that newspaper, which may, or may not, be the case.

All of this is absurd, and doubly so because you, the reader, very possibly already know all about it, including the bits that we are not at liberty to print. If you do not, and are sitting at a computer, you could probably find full details in a matter of moments. Although we may not tell you how.

The ongoing attempts of high-profile individuals to use injunctions, super or otherwise, to keep their misdeeds out of the papers has moved from sinister, to farcical, to something closer to madness. Social media, the same technology which kept protesters on Middle Eastern streets one step ahead of the law during the Arab Spring, is now the predominant arena in which the practice is being exposed as hollow. Schillings, the London media law firm which represents many celebrities and footballers, is now attempting a rear-guard action, targeting individuals, such as the journalist mentioned above, who have named those who, like Lord Voldemort, must not be.

This is a profoundly cynical move. Certainly, it will not help those whose identities are supposed to be shielded by injunctions. With every step their lawyers take — from injunction to superinjunction to writ to threat — mentions online of those involved soar. With various horses so evidently bolted, the logic for pursuing individual tweeters seems dubious. One has to question whether any celebrity who pays a lawyer a huge fee to keep his private life private and sees it smeared across the web as a direct result is really getting his money’s worth.

Cyberspace is a tricky place to bully. Organisations of many sorts have struggled to control the flow of information online, all with at best very limited success. Legal muscle has not yet eradicated the illegal spread of Hollywood films, Top 40 music, the home sex tapes of stars or the classified documents of US intelligence. It is deluded at best to pretend it can more easily suppress the few small words which make up a fact.

Websites should of course obey the law, and the people who use them should, too. Yet the law over injunctions is so frequently and easily flouted because it is a bad law. It is an affront that rich and powerful people should seek to pay to tell the public what they can and cannot read, but it is also, increasingly obviously, a myth that such suppression is even possible. Publishing in Scotland, the Sunday Herald is theoretically free from the constraints of injunctions, as are publishers from the United States, or elsewhere. Ordinary users of Twitter, likewise, cannot be expected to be bound by the terms of an injunction they have never seen. Why should representatives of traditional media be at such disadvantage, even when using the same technology?

Jeremy Hunt, the Culture Secretary, declared last week that the internet was “making an ass of the law”. In fact, the law needs no such help. Contempt of court is a crime, but contempt for Britain’s injunction habit is close to universal.

Biggins

Richard Dower wrote: »

...Imogen is a fame and money w&ore....she WANTED her name out to cash in + raised profile, future shoots and tv work, she's no victim!

She is not innocent of the illicit relationship HOWEVER if you look into the matter right, The Sun Paper was going to print the story about her relationship firstly and then went to her for comment regardless if she wanted to say anything in rhetorical comment or not.

She DID NOT go to them and/or offer to sell them a story. Please check into that yourself to get your own independent verification and not just take my word for it.

At present she is trying to defend herself against the current allegations being thrown up about her - within the confines of the daft injunction to which so far she IS totally obeying - also she is considering serious legal action against her ex-lover for his accusation that she was blackmailing him - possibly over pictures some mysterious person in court mentioned.
She totally denies this and it looks like she is going to court now to prove this unfounded smear by her ex just used to get his daft injunction against the Sun - not just her!

P.S. He wanted the Super-injunction not to preserve his family but supposedly to protect his PR image.
In other words so that he could much BIGGER time, make more massive money with his supposed clean cut image!
...And you call her the whore? HE wanted to rake more in!!!
Total daftness and one sidedness - like a horse wearing blinkers!

mcmoustache

Richard Dower wrote: »

Imogen is a fame and money w&ore....she WANTED her name out to cash in + raised profile, future shoots and tv work, she's no victim!

I agree. I despise people like her.
The thing is, these super injunctions don't just target kiss-and-tell merchants like this Thomas woman. They can affect normal people too.

It was brought up in another thread in AH which got deleted (Biggins was there) but I think the point is worth repeating. Imagine a scenario where John Terry had an affair with your wife/girlfriend and then took out a super injunction against that fact. You'd be raging but emasculated because you couldn't say anything. You'd have to just suck it up and you could never out the bastard who had his way with your other half.

These injunctions allow for this. There was also a case recently where an oil trading company called Trafigura took out a super injunction against publication of an internal inquiry into dumpling in the Ivory Coast. This information was very much in the public interest, yet the injunction was granted.

Again, let me reiterate, I have no respect for women who date footballers and then sell their stories. I also think that Ryan Giggs is one of the best footballers to have ever lived and I respect him a lot as a footballer.But these super injunctions are much bigger than that. They affect our rights to speak freely and they should be opposed. Even if it means taking the side of a talentless, money-grubbing, kiss-and-tell merchant like this Thomas woman.

Biggins

...But mcmoustache, she was not doing a kiss and tell, The Sun supposedly was running with the story of their affair when they found out about it - and then went to her and him for comment before final print and closure of lead-time. He then just went to his lawyers to shut her up from THEN giving her side of their affair (with supposedly - but not proved - pictures which someone claims she was trying to sell) and stop the paper running the story.

She is not innocent by far but lets get some things in their correct order.
The Sun found out about her and him firstly and went to her. Not she to them it appears.

Lets say it was 50/50 even in regards possible money.
He sure still wanted to make his too! Just under a false clean image it appears.

Again, let me reiterate, I have no respect for women who date footballers and then sell their stories. I also think that Ryan Giggs is one of the best footballers to have ever lived and I respect him a lot as a footballer.But these super injunctions are much bigger than that. They affect our rights to speak freely and they should be opposed.

Totally agree. Its an abuse of the law just for the rich and the powerful.
As the editor of The Times put it:

...It is an affront that rich and powerful people should seek to pay to tell the public what they can and cannot read...

You can with money, do what you want, try get away with it at home and then buy censorship!
(...And the allegation of 'Blackmail' didn't even have to be proven in the court, it just was thrown out there by his side and used to get his way - and the male judge granted to him his demands/gave him his wish!)

No, she was not a saint by far but all I hear is nearly mostly the condemning of her coming from some men.
How surprising (not!).

Richard Dower

^ you haven't a clue about Imogen, her rep. her past history, selling stories, tipping off paps. The original Sun story quoted "a pal" aka Chelsea White...her bessie, it's a well established to use "a pal" to leak a story. You hear about the swine flu fake story they created?....Chelsea took the pics, they pocketed the cash.

Chelsea even let the cat out of bag on Twitter, when Imogen was supposed to be in quarantine in her house Chelsea Tweeted they were both going out on the town, she then deleted the Tweets.

I suggest you Google, anyone who has read the BB forum on DS knows her long history. She actively worked with the tabloids, why does she claim she would never have sold her story....then sold her story!

He put out the injunction becuase he KNEW she was about to kiss n tell.

amacachi

The whole superinjunction thing is hilarious. Ian Hislop was going to print a story about Andrew Marr despite the huge penalties Private Eye probably would've gotten because of that. Unfortunately Marr found out and went ahead and "came clean" before Private Eye could print anything.

Biggins

Richard Dower wrote: »

^ you haven't a clue about Imogen, her rep. her past history, selling stories, tipping off paps. The original Sun story quoted "a pal" aka Chelsea White...her bessie, it's a well established to use "a pal" to leak a story. You hear about the swine flu fake story they created?....Chelsea took the pics, they pocketed the cash.

Chelsea even let the cat out of bag on Twitter, when Imogen was supposed to be in quarantine in her house Chelsea Tweeted they were both going out on the town, she then deleted the Tweets.

I suggest you Google, anyone who has read the BB forum on DS knows her long history. She actively worked with the tabloids, why does she claim she would never have sold her story....then sold her story!

He put out the injunction becuase he KNEW she was about to kiss n tell.

O' there is no doubt that she has done things previously given her Big Brother status. Its the thing that 'made' her as such. Herself and her PR people whom advise her would be telling her to work it as much as possible.

However in relation to JUST the farce that is related to you know who and their illicit affair, the fact is that it was the Sun that went after her for the story, not she after them it appears.

Again, she brought all this upon herself but before I condemn her for being a 'whore' JUST for supposedly going forwards and selling her story - I'd want to be sure, 100% sure that is what she did in relation to him - and so far she has verminous denied this in every chance the court has allowed her under the present restrains put on her.
She has even sought legal advice to stop those saying different and is threatening further court action to clear her name as regards the very unproved aspersions made so far (including also blackmail claims from his side).

I have no doubt whatsoever that if even the micro-opportunistic ability arose for her to gain publicity, she would jump at it - and she might have.
He however ran to the courts firstly to shut the paper up and secondly her (by journalist standard practice to offer people being wrote about, rhetorical comment to their near in print story which they inform the principle people involved, about).

For the record, its standard practice now that the worst of the rag journalists, give as little time as possible to retort in comment to a story they might be running. This is to aid the paper in getting their print run off before a court can be got to, interseed and halt the presses.

neveah

Richard Dower wrote: »

^ you haven't a clue about Imogen, her rep. her past history, selling stories, tipping off paps. The original Sun story quoted "a pal" aka Chelsea White...her bessie, it's a well established to use "a pal" to leak a story. You hear about the swine flu fake story they created?....Chelsea took the pics, they pocketed the cash.

Chelsea even let the cat out of bag on Twitter, when Imogen was supposed to be in quarantine in her house Chelsea Tweeted they were both going out on the town, she then deleted the Tweets.

I suggest you Google, anyone who has read the BB forum on DS knows her long history. She actively worked with the tabloids, why does she claim she would never have sold her story....then sold her story!

He put out the injunction becuase he KNEW she was about to kiss n tell.

If he knew all this about Imogen then he should have known better than to have an affair with her. The way I look at it you play with fire you're going to get burned.

I don't have any respect for women who pursue footballers for money and kiss 'n tell stories but we all know these type of women are out there, *news flash* so do all the footballers! Yet they can't help themselves and they somehow delude themselves into thinking that it won't come out eventually. We may never fully know what part Imogen had to play here but in my opinion the footballer only has himself to blame now that his name is splashed all over the internet.

RosyLily

There both as bad as each other IMO. He's well-known enough for info like this to get out fairly easily and she should know better than to have an affair with a married man.

Does anyone believe in the vows of marriage these days? The only person that can do marriage is Paul Newman and "Super-Injunction Footballer" is no Paul Newman.

Apparently, another footballer is mentioned on Twitter as being another one that plays away.

JP Liz V1

Giggs should have known what Imogen was like before he got involved with her, he only thought with his penis and now whats to keep it all hush hush

Fair play to this Imogen one for making cash from her conquests makes her a prostitute but the conquests are the f*cking idiots for thinking she wouldnt

Giggs was married with kids - he is a f*cking disgrace and trying to take on Twitter has made him look a bigger tool