I am not disagreeing. Giggs legal and media teams handled this very badly. If there had been a simple expose in the press it would have been over by now. Though by doing it this way will mean that he has blown the matter up out oif all proportions. It is his wife and family I feel sorry for.

I'd rather disagree about this to be honest. At this point, the fact it is Ryan Giggs is pretty much irrelevant to the continuation of the story. The story is now how overbearing superinjunctions can be, and how attempting to enforce them within judicial boundaries is a futile exercise in the internet age. To a degree the press are self-serving - they want to be able to print everything they want to print - but the way the legal system works in reality is that it's powers creep forward unless they are challenged and tested. If super-injuctions had not been shown to be effectively useless, I'm pretty sure we'd have seen more of them and I'm also pretty sure their remit would have broadened. Ryan Giggs having an affair was a catalyst for this.. public examination of this aspect of the law but it could just as easily have been any of the other people who have also taken one out.

As for the earlier quote I've always said no law can be properly enforced without public consent. Super-injunctions are not the first example of this. Mainly laws are simply ignored if they are seem to be generally unpopular, both by the public and the police at the sharp end. In this case the process has just been much more public and documented. The idea that the government should enact laws that the majority wish to see is a trickier issue - the government is there almost in a sense to save us from ourselves on occasion. The theory is we elect a set of somewhat intelligent, somewhat moral individuals to make decisions on our behalf because at some level we all know that we're one step away from being a baying mob and therefore we're not entirely to be trusted as a whole.

Jon

I've been badly trying to make the point that superinjuntions should be sorted out but it's been based on an irrelevant case. Mind you would a majority of the public be bothered if it was about something important upon which the whole discussion sparked into life?

Sadly I think not.

There can be justification for a very short term super injunction to allow someone to tell those involved that there will be a [LIFTED] storm coming. If that had been the case then Ryan Giggs could have come clean to his wife and then rather than her discover the truth on the front page of some sunday rag. She could disappear on holiday till the storm dies down leaving him to face the press.

Looking at the whole Ryan Giggs bit sideways for a moment, you have to think about the position of his wife.

While the super injunction is under way, she can’t say anything. She could not, for example, trot off to a divorce lawyer and start proceedings, could she? If she has to name names (ie who her husband was having an affair with) to lay blame for marital break-up. If this isn’t a whole heap of logic fail on my part, the injunction effectively traps her.

The superinjunction only prevented naming Giggs. The woman, whose only claim to fame is being famous for something and now having an affair with a footballer, was named quite early on.

I'm not certain why I'm even commenting on this. The sordid details don't interest me as much as the wider issues of press freedom and personal privacy.

If knowing who’s knocking boots with whom is the price we have to pay for keeping the likes of Trafigura (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafigura#Super-injunction) in line and allowing the press to report their misdeeds, then I’m all for it. People with the public spotlight on them should know that if they step out of line that a [LIFTED] is coming their way. They have two options - stop it (a public statement acknowledging wrong-doing would be a good move at this point), or carry on and take the lashings. Common sense shows that option 1 is preferable to option 2. If said footballer has no common sense, then I’m not going to loose sleep over it.

In the meantime, the reporting of mega-corporations dumping shed-loads of crap on an African beach would not be suppressed, and we’d know that large financial institutions are being run by honest people.

More super injuction news

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/may/ ... ion-breach

That's what I never understood about the whole suing twatter fiasco. It's American based so if they allowed it to go to court the prosecutor would have been named.

call the fail fleet your services are urgently required!

Actually, it appears he's getting quite a lot of protection.

So....



And there are no photos of this incident? Sounds like journalist FAIL to me. We may have to build another jetty.

Yeah I saw the news about masked attackers. A bit extreme isn't it? If this had all come out in the press when he took out the super injunction am sure it would all be forgotten now and we would be talking about something else.

I see Ramsey's father-in-law had his injunction rejected. He wanted to stop news of his 2nd family getting out.

As far as I'm concerned most men shag about so why is it news? I said most not all. I know there are some good loyal faithful men out there.