4 ms·

UK citizen here. Yeah, I'm pretty outraged by it. I mean, we don't have true freedom of expression/speech/reporting over here (hence super injunctions), but it

UK citizen here. Yeah, I'm pretty outraged by it. I mean, we don't have true freedom of expression/speech/reporting over here (hence super injunctions), but it's still crazy how various rich people - mainly overpaid footballers - are having affairs and then bullying their way through the courts to protect their 'privacy'/overexcited lebido.. Plus we've now got the ridiculous situation whereby the person who cheated (in this case, Ryan Giggs..) is protected, whilst the person they cheated with (in this case, Imogen Thomas) is seeing their name dragged through the dirt. It's bizzare to say the least. Thankfully this hopefully won't be as much of an issue in the future however, since a report was released today (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13465286 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13465286) and the general consensus is that injuctions have been awarded too often and in the future they shouldn't be used (as much) for these purposes. Still, it's pretty annoying that rich adulterers are being legally protected..

pyre 15y ago
> , it's pretty annoying that rich adulterers > are being legally protected.. They have the best laws that money can buy...
- seabee 15y ago
  If you want to be pragmatic about it, the targets of such celebrity gossip are generally rich. The only people this excludes are the 'human interest' types - perpetrators and victims of some crime or tragedy - and the stories tabloids like to run on those people are better served by libel laws anyway. So really this isn't a big deal.
  - pyre 15y ago
    How do you then evaluate that (at least in this case), the celebrity that cheated is protected, but the person that that celebrity cheated with is not protected? That doesn't make sense. Due the to high profile of the rich celebrity, the other person's name will also be dragged through the papers (especially if they have been banned from mentioning the celebrity in question). What about that person's 'right to privacy?'
bhrgunatha 15y ago
I share your outrage at the super injunctions and I don't believe they are the best way to handle the rampant gutter press. However - where do you get your facts from that he cheated on his wife? Supposition and rumour I suspect. If you read the court documents - http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/1232.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/1232.html - he definitely appears guilty of being stupid, naive and manipulated by a money grabbing woman, with an over inflated sense of self worth and fake celebrity. I'm no fan of the super injunctions - I believe it would have all blown over very quickly had he not have gone to the courts. But you are stating categorically that he cheated on his wife and that she is the innocent party. Based on what evidence? If you think carefully this is exactly the type of behaviour that we should be trying to deal with, guesswork and gossip being reported as fact.

pyre 15y ago

> , it's pretty annoying that rich adulterers > are being legally protected.. They have the best laws that money can buy...

seabee 15y ago
If you want to be pragmatic about it, the targets of such celebrity gossip are generally rich. The only people this excludes are the 'human interest' types - perpetrators and victims of some crime or tragedy - and the stories tabloids like to run on those people are better served by libel laws anyway. So really this isn't a big deal.
- pyre 15y ago
  How do you then evaluate that (at least in this case), the celebrity that cheated is protected, but the person that that celebrity cheated with is not protected? That doesn't make sense. Due the to high profile of the rich celebrity, the other person's name will also be dragged through the papers (especially if they have been banned from mentioning the celebrity in question). What about that person's 'right to privacy?'

bhrgunatha 15y ago

I share your outrage at the super injunctions and I don't believe they are the best way to handle the rampant gutter press. However - where do you get your facts from that he cheated on his wife? Supposition and rumour I suspect. If you read the court documents - http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/1232.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/1232.html - he definitely appears guilty of being stupid, naive and manipulated by a money grabbing woman, with an over inflated sense of self worth and fake celebrity. I'm no fan of the super injunctions - I believe it would have all blown over very quickly had he not have gone to the courts. But you are stating categorically that he cheated on his wife and that she is the innocent party. Based on what evidence? If you think carefully this is exactly the type of behaviour that we should be trying to deal with, guesswork and gossip being reported as fact.