A third England footballer has won an injunction to stop claims about his private life going public.

None of the footballers can be named under the terms of the orders

The gagging order, granted by High Court judge Mr Justice Kenneth Parker, bans allegations of a "sexual liaison, encounter or relationship" appearing in the media.

It prevents the publication of "private or personal photographs" stored on a mobile telephone, which was stolen and then offered to national newspapers.

The order follows two other England international players being granted similar injunctions to block reports of claims about their private lives.

None of the footballers can be named under the terms of the legal orders.

Concerns have been raised about the use of injunctions to stop reporting of potentially embarrassing revelations.

There was outrage in 2009 after an injunction granted to the Swiss multinational Trafigura appeared to restrict what MPs could say in Parliament.

Chelsea football captain John Terry was awarded an injunction - later repealed - preventing reporting of information about his alleged affair with Vanessa Perroncel.

The woman used to be in a relationship with his England team-mate Wayne Bridge.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-New ... 8527?f=rss

I'm always torn between thinking they should have a private life and, 'Well, if you're in the public eye and gonna act the git...'

The injunctions themselves are just a nonsense though

I always think that celebrities are entitled to a private life as long as they deserve one. Unfortunately, too often it's footballers that [LIFTED] it up for the rest of them.

Yes but if they claim a family man reputation for sponsors then it might be of public interest. If the men are single then what they do as long as its legal is really a private matter.

I don't like the idea of the press being gagged, but when it's gutter stories like this rather than REAL news, I suppose it doesn't matter as much.

Question: If someone has photo on a stolen phone, how come they're no all over the internet? Courts have no practical control of the web.

They do, however, have control over British citizens, so unless you want to end up in jail for Contempt of Court...

Yeah, but tracking down someone who's put something on the internet isn't an easy thing to do.

It'll become a lot easier if they approach a newspaper, which, TBH, I think they would given the money involved.