Footballers super-injunction

[spud_gun]

[Lee]

I never thought you would keep that quote

what a tosser he was...

Hopefully this super-injunction **** will die down now.

[Kenneth]

It's a shame for Giggs and United this, isn't it. Big game on Saturday. Real shame.

[Rudo]

Getting a bit boring all this super-injunctions talk.(in the media)

[Neil Young]

Oh right, that's the main thing. Forget the principles involved - all that matters is whether something is entertaining.

[Fernandinho]

If the papers aren't entertaining then who is going to buy them Neil. We consumers want new bull**** to talk about every day.

[Rudo]

Oh right, that's the main thing. Forget the principles involved - all that matters is whether something is entertaining.

I think after about a month of it all - papers, twitter, forums etc that's it getting pretty ****in boring.

So Ryan Giggs had an affair with Imogen Thomas, we get it. Not gonna have an impact on any our lives, and does anyone really care?

[Craig_H]

Oh right, that's the main thing. Forget the principles involved - all that matters is whether something is entertaining.

[Alex]

I think after about a month of it all - papers, twitter, forums etc that's it getting pretty ****in boring.

So Ryan Giggs had an affair with Imogen Thomas, we get it. Not gonna have an impact on any our lives, and does anyone really care?

I think the wider issue will have an impact on our lives. Do you really want the rich to be able to cover up things as they see fit?

[Exiled_red]

I think after about a month of it all - papers, twitter, forums etc that's it getting pretty ****in boring.

So Ryan Giggs had an affair with Imogen Thomas, we get it. Not gonna have an impact on any our lives, and does anyone really care?

I'm looking forward to the chants & songs he'll get from the opposition fans

It's a shame the season has ended

[Neil Young]

I think after about a month of it all - papers, twitter, forums etc that's it getting pretty ****in boring.

So Ryan Giggs had an affair with Imogen Thomas, we get it. Not gonna have an impact on any our lives, and does anyone really care?

OK, we all have to live our lives our own way.

But it's good to know that even if the whole planet were blacked out by volcanic ash clouds, there'd still be someone on Earth with a sky filled with things flying miles over his head.

[Craig_H]

Stop it Neil

[Harv]

Hid wife looks better than Imogen FFS. What an idiot.

[BillobShaisley]

I think the wider issue will have an impact on our lives. Do you really want the rich to be able to cover up things as they see fit?

Right, lets just back things up a minute and avoid some bull****, because that is not the wider issue at all!

An injunction can't be used to cover-up corruption or professional incompetance or things that are 'in the public interest' (That is a specific term that means something very different from 'of interest to the public'). They are only available to protect the privacy of people (rich or otherwise) in private situations. What someone does for a living or how wealthy or likeable they are has no relevance to the application of law.

If Ryan Giggs was a vicar or politician campaigning on moral grounds or even a judge for example committing the crime of adultery, then there would be some public interest in revealing the hypocrisy. But there is no public interest issues in a footballer dipping his wick, no matter how interested the public may be in it.

We are all interested in Pipa Middletons arse, but an ex-boyfriend shouldn't be allowed to sell pictures of it to a paper just because of that interest.

The wider issue, like with civil rights, is how much privacy you or I are entitled to in our private lives. Giggs is to privacy what terrorists are to liberty. The unpopular totem used to usher in otherwise objectionable measures, because...well it's just those cunts so **** 'em yeah? Well, it's not just them, its everyone!

[Alex]

Right, lets just back things up a minute and avoid some bull****, because that is not the wider issue at all!

An injunction can't be used to cover-up corruption or professional incompetance or things that are 'in the public interest' (That is a specific term that means something very different from 'of interest to the public'). They are only available to protect the privacy of people (rich or otherwise) in private situations. What someone does for a living or how wealthy or likeable they are has no relevance to the application of law.

If Ryan Giggs was a vicar or politician campaigning on moral grounds or even a judge for example committing the crime of adultery, then there would be some public interest in revealing the hypocrisy. But there is no public interest issues in a footballer dipping his wick, no matter how interested the public may be in it.

We are all interested in Pipa Middletons arse, but an ex-boyfriend shouldn't be allowed to sell pictures of it to a paper just because of that interest.

The wider issue, like with civil rights, is how much privacy you or I are entitled to in our private lives. Giggs is to privacy what terrorists are to liberty. The unpopular totem used to usher in otherwise objectionable measures, because...well it's just those cunts so **** 'em yeah? Well, it's not just them, its everyone!

Im basing what I said about a story I heard a while ago about Trafigura gagging the Guardian. Which was something about covering up a report. There not just for Celebs, which is why I wrote "The Rich"

Edit: I kind of missed your point first time around. But I agree with you, maybe I was being too sweeping with what I said.