What happend to all the footballer rape cases
Discussion
Puggit said:
On the basis that the footballers have enough money to pay for them
Well, I was wondering if it was more that the case is not permitted to be reported until there is a conviction secured. i.e. for once protecting a potentially innocent man.. I was kind of hoping that the courts were being reasonable in this regard. BUT if found guilty then Justice must be seen to be done, so the names will be published....
jdw1234 said:
Andy Zarse said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Beckham!! Thanks Tonks!
1). David Beckham
2.) John Terry
3.) Steven Gerrard
4.) Ashley Cole
5.) Rio Ferdinand
6.) Gareth Barry
7.) Michael Carrick
8.) Wayne Rooney
Jasandjules said:
Puggit said:
On the basis that the footballers have enough money to pay for them
Well, I was wondering if it was more that the case is not permitted to be reported until there is a conviction secured. i.e. for once protecting a potentially innocent man.. I was kind of hoping that the courts were being reasonable in this regard. BUT if found guilty then Justice must be seen to be done, so the names will be published....
I think it makes sense that no one can be named and shamed unless proved guilty in a court of law.
For something as serious as rape it does get banded about so often, yet no convictions.
Once again the daily mail rescues a PH thread!
"The High Court has lifted a gagging order preventing the public from learning details about England Captain John Terry's alleged affair with a team-mate’s girlfriend.
The so-called 'super-injunction' was granted by a High Court judge under human rights laws.
Terry, 29, claimed that exposing his alleged infidelity would be a breach of his right to a ‘private and family life’.
Mr Justice Tugendhat granted the interim order to lawyers acting for LNS - as Terry is identified on court papers - at a private hearing in London last Friday.
The England captain was married to wife Toni in 2007.
He said that it should remain in force until he delivered his decision on the application, which he gave in writing today.
The order covered the fact of a specified personal relationship between Terry, who is married with twins, and the named person, details about it including certain specific consequences, information leading to the identification of Terry or the other person and any photographs relating to it.
Giving his reasons for refusing to renew the injunction, the judge said: 'I accept that the information sought to be protected is not in the public domain in the sense that there is nothing left to be protected.
'But the evidence is that there has been wide circulation amongst those involved in the sport in question, including agents and others, and not just amongst those directly engaged in the sport.
'If the injunction ought otherwise be granted, I would not refuse it on this basis. But the fact that the information has become as widely available to so many people, means that an injunction is less necessary or proportionate than would otherwise be the case.
'Further, if - as I think likely - the real concern of the applicant in this case is the effect of publication upon the sponsorship business, then damages would be an adequate remedy if Terry succeeds at trial.'
A hearing before the judge at which a number of newspapers are represented is continuing in private.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1247085/Jo...
"The High Court has lifted a gagging order preventing the public from learning details about England Captain John Terry's alleged affair with a team-mate’s girlfriend.
The so-called 'super-injunction' was granted by a High Court judge under human rights laws.
Terry, 29, claimed that exposing his alleged infidelity would be a breach of his right to a ‘private and family life’.
Mr Justice Tugendhat granted the interim order to lawyers acting for LNS - as Terry is identified on court papers - at a private hearing in London last Friday.
The England captain was married to wife Toni in 2007.
He said that it should remain in force until he delivered his decision on the application, which he gave in writing today.
The order covered the fact of a specified personal relationship between Terry, who is married with twins, and the named person, details about it including certain specific consequences, information leading to the identification of Terry or the other person and any photographs relating to it.
Giving his reasons for refusing to renew the injunction, the judge said: 'I accept that the information sought to be protected is not in the public domain in the sense that there is nothing left to be protected.
'But the evidence is that there has been wide circulation amongst those involved in the sport in question, including agents and others, and not just amongst those directly engaged in the sport.
'If the injunction ought otherwise be granted, I would not refuse it on this basis. But the fact that the information has become as widely available to so many people, means that an injunction is less necessary or proportionate than would otherwise be the case.
'Further, if - as I think likely - the real concern of the applicant in this case is the effect of publication upon the sponsorship business, then damages would be an adequate remedy if Terry succeeds at trial.'
A hearing before the judge at which a number of newspapers are represented is continuing in private.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1247085/Jo...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff