Injunctions - a bit more leaks out
Discussion
If indeed the footballer is the victim of blackmail then as long as it is not a minor matter then the press should not be able to publish his details unless the subject of the matter is of significant public interest. However, sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose as well. Regardless of what you think about the woman, being accused by a person of blackmail, a serious criminal offence, and having it bandied about the media quite legally is really quite obscene.
It is accepted that she has recourse to civil remedies in theory but in practice you need a fair bit of money to have access to this elitist part of the law. Civil redress in the main is for the rich, and that part of the rich which doesn't mind lining the pockets of lawyers.
If this footballer, whom we all know the name of but are not allowed to say it, is indeed over the side then this is a pathetically peurile use of injunctions and press restrictions. His missus knows who it is - unless she's a dolt, not impossible I accept - as does the rest of the world so there is no injury to the footballer if it is published. What is Eady on about?
The vast majority of people do not care who is sleeping with whom. The vast majority do care about their rights to know what the rich companies and rich people are doing if it is of public interest but the way this bloke eady inteprets the EU law means that thee is serious doubt as to whether some of these tens of injunctions do infringe our Right to know.
Civil law in this coutnry has always been a bit farcical and the preerve of the rick and idle. Eady's decisions have now taken it into the dangerous.
We know that we cannot trust the judgement of judges without checks. A super-injunction not only protects the bloke who takes it out but the judge as well.
Living in a free country costs. If you do not want the fact that you are over the side published because you want to preserve the image of lovely family man then the best course of action is clear. It is a shame that some people and some papers are reprehensible but the thing about the Daily Mail is that, at the moment, is doesn't seek to limit my rights. Not everyone in this debacle can say that.
It is accepted that she has recourse to civil remedies in theory but in practice you need a fair bit of money to have access to this elitist part of the law. Civil redress in the main is for the rich, and that part of the rich which doesn't mind lining the pockets of lawyers.
If this footballer, whom we all know the name of but are not allowed to say it, is indeed over the side then this is a pathetically peurile use of injunctions and press restrictions. His missus knows who it is - unless she's a dolt, not impossible I accept - as does the rest of the world so there is no injury to the footballer if it is published. What is Eady on about?
The vast majority of people do not care who is sleeping with whom. The vast majority do care about their rights to know what the rich companies and rich people are doing if it is of public interest but the way this bloke eady inteprets the EU law means that thee is serious doubt as to whether some of these tens of injunctions do infringe our Right to know.
Civil law in this coutnry has always been a bit farcical and the preerve of the rick and idle. Eady's decisions have now taken it into the dangerous.
We know that we cannot trust the judgement of judges without checks. A super-injunction not only protects the bloke who takes it out but the judge as well.
Living in a free country costs. If you do not want the fact that you are over the side published because you want to preserve the image of lovely family man then the best course of action is clear. It is a shame that some people and some papers are reprehensible but the thing about the Daily Mail is that, at the moment, is doesn't seek to limit my rights. Not everyone in this debacle can say that.
In the Evening Standard it states one of the reasons the footballer is taking action is he is safeguarding his image.
Now this seems tantamount to fraud. He is concerned that publishing the fact he has had an affair would be bad for his image. Well in that case surely the image is false? So shouldn't be protected?
Now this seems tantamount to fraud. He is concerned that publishing the fact he has had an affair would be bad for his image. Well in that case surely the image is false? So shouldn't be protected?
Her side:
She didn't tell/sell the story. Was doorstepped by the Sun accusing her of affair (this is in The Sun apparently). She called Clifford to deny/quash the story to protect the player. There was no blackmail - blackmail not mentioned by the player or the court - only the judge. She didn't ask for money either. She did have an affair - 6 month relationship with him.
Seems a nice girl (seriously). Seemed genuine. I believe her.
WFH is great - daytime tv!
She didn't tell/sell the story. Was doorstepped by the Sun accusing her of affair (this is in The Sun apparently). She called Clifford to deny/quash the story to protect the player. There was no blackmail - blackmail not mentioned by the player or the court - only the judge. She didn't ask for money either. She did have an affair - 6 month relationship with him.
Seems a nice girl (seriously). Seemed genuine. I believe her.
WFH is great - daytime tv!
Are any of the people mentioned in my post involved in a Super-Injunction? Had I known that they had taken out a Super-Injunction then I never would have mentioned them.....but of course we aren't allowed to know who has taken out a Super-Injunction, therefore how am I supposed to know that I'm not allowed to mention them? How does anyone know that I'm not allowed to mention them, unless of course, they DO know who has taken out a Super-Injunction......which would rather seem to defeat the point of a Super-Injunction, if people do know who has taken it out......
TEKNOPUG said:
Are any of the people mentioned in my post involved in a Super-Injunction? Had I known that they had taken out a Super-Injunction then I never would have mentioned them.....but of course we aren't allowed to know who has taken out a Super-Injunction, therefore how am I supposed to know that I'm not allowed to mention them? How does anyone know that I'm not allowed to mention them, unless of course, they DO know who has taken out a Super-Injunction......which would rather seem to defeat the point of a Super-Injunction, if people do know who has taken it out......
I thought there had been a trim 
Shaw Tarse said:
She can't name him, but could she sell the signed shirt on eBay?
Looks like a Spanish newspaper may be naming the footballer.
I thought several foreign newspapers printed it last week, which makes it more farcicalLooks like a Spanish newspaper may be naming the footballer.
What they should do is allow these things for people like Milly Dowlere dad to stop the press printing salacious details that benefit no one IMO
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff