Yes lets see them sue a few thousand people who can't be traced.
Interesting interview on TV this morning. Basically saying if they had let the tabloids make headlines on it originally it would have all been done and forgotten in 24 hours. Now it will drag on and on and on.

I think we'd actually have to redefine 'average intelligence' in the UK if we got rid of our footballers

I don't know who the footballer is and I don't care.

Injunctions shouldn't be allowed for serious activities to be hidden from the public, what rich tw@s get up to doesn't concern me and they should not be able to receive differential treatment from the Justice system just because they can pay for it. If he wins his case (doubtful) it's a more serious concern that big corporations will be able to hide things they shouldn't more easily than they can at present.

That said, if the millions of dimwits that are actually bothered by which non-entity is shagging which non-entity stopped being bothered then it wouldn't really be an issue.

Wouldn't be surprised at all if the anonymous twatter accounts were set up by the Newspapers.

But, but... his surname rhymes with Ronnie Biggs!

Streisand effect FTW.

The issue is super injunctions. No, I’m not bothered if a footballer “plays away” either. Nor am I bothered if he starts “batting from the pavilion end”. It’s really non-news. Tittle-tattle at best.

The concern is when the super injunctions are used to cover up serious wrong doing. For example, the oil company using one to silence reports about it’s polluting.

I really don’t think that they should exist. If this means that we get a few extra shagging sportsmen in the tabloids, then this is the price we pay for being able to expose nefarious activities of entities who really should not be using the courts to hide their badness.

BBC News just reported the footballer's name is being retweeted at a rate of 16 messages per minute. Good luck trying to start a legal action against that many people...

Jon

Aye, twas the point I was trying to make but I seemed to have swallowed a bag full of left over scrabble squares that I coughed up in my post.

Ry?n G?ggs must have a lot of money to sue that many people.

They are going about this the wrong way. TBH whether he had an affair or not, is his business only. Though if he is trading on his reputation as a family man and all round nice guy for commercial reasons then that is definitely of public interest. It would definitely be obtaining monies by fraudulant practice if this were not disclosed to sponsors. In which case he should be in court for fraud.

Sorry but I'm going to be a party-pooper.

This is a very fluid situation in a legal field that could be generously described as ‘murky‘. Moreover we all know just how interesting judges can be. IMO at the present it may be wise for people to refrain from using any direct references to or names of those involved whilst on these forums.

Nothing's going to happen - we all know that. But to run even the slightest risk along legal lines for the sake of a celebrity who possesses no importance whatsoever seems a little foolish to me.

Just sayin'

Well I doubt if any of us know who the person is even if it is tweeted. Giggs name came up a while ago I have not been following twitter today as I have been out partying. The real issue is should such injuctions be given out so freely. While the Max Mosely case was apparently not Nazi themed it looked very much Nazi themed in the photos. It might be a private matter but if someone has a murky past it does leave them oopen to blackmail if someone does find out and tries to use it to gain financial advantage. For example some consortium could have threatened to disclose such facts, that he had a murky past of he did not approve of a Grand Prix in some country. Now he cannot be blackmailed over the matter. The same applies to diplomats. I have absolutely no problem whether a diplomat is gay or not, but if it could be used against him then it becomes a problem. If it cannot be used, because his bosses know that he is gay, it is a non story. Then it will simply become tomorrows chip wrapper.

Surely the point is if you tweet 'John Smedley had an affair' and you then get prosecuted for breaching the super-injunction, this in itself confirms John Smedley had an affair and was the person who took out the injunction in the first place. Because you can only be prosecuted for contempt of court if you're talking about the right person. If you're talking about someone else they could sue you but it would be nothing to do with the super-injunction.

Going after Twitter because of what people posted is a tacit admission that what they posted was correct, otherwise you can't go after them for breaching the injunction. The whole situation is an utter farce and Judge Eady should be booted back to junior desk clerk for precipitating it. Anyone with any sense of the real world could have told him this was exactly what was going to happen and he was a fool to grant the injunction in the first place. The judiciary and government no longer have control over what we see and hear. Also, whoever is advising <the person who took out the injunction> needs to be fired. NOW. They patently haven't ever heard the adage 'when you're in a hole, stop digging'.

Jon