UK Super Injunctions
HW
press from publishing details of various events involving high profile
individuals.
Here are the details of some:
1. Manchester United footballer Ryan Giggs had an extramarital affair with
Big Brother star Imogen Thomas which lasted for 7 months. Giggs is believed
to have now confessed all to his wife but the injunction still remains in
place.
2. British comedian/actor David Schneider is said to have a keen interest in
BDSM and has made several visits to spanking establishments to engage in the
spanking/whipping of women. His wife is not believed to know.
3. TV chef Gordon Ramsay is said to have sexually harassed one female
employee and sacked a male employee for no reason. The man is alleging age
discrimination. He is still owed wages by Ramsay.
4. British actor Hugh Bonneville (Downton Abbey, Doctor Who) paid £195 for
the services of prostitute Helen Wood. Helen Wood is the high profile
prostitute who received much tabloid coverage last year over her involvement
in a sex session with footballer Wayne Rooney. Wood is said to have used a
sex toy on Bonneville.
5. Top Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson has an injunction against publication
of naked intimate photographs of himself and a woman.
6. Two stars of the British TV show Shameless, David Threlfall (Frank
Gallagher) and Pauline McLynn (Libby Croker) had an affair. Both are
married. McLynn is said to have left the show as a result.
TommoCubed
> British actor Hugh Bonneville (Downton Abbey, Doctor Who) paid £195 for
> the services of prostitute Helen Wood
"British actor Hugh Bonneville (Downton Abbey, Doctor Who) paid £195 for
the services of prostitute Helen Wood"
What? The cheap bastard, couldn't he have rounded it up to a straight
£200? Why did she price it like that? She should do the M&S thing and
just demand the price in whole rounded figures. That's class.
"Top Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson has an injunction against
publication of naked intimate photographs of himself and a woman."
Actually I agree with this one. He's great in an overpowered sports car
(with all of the stabilisation features switched on, obviously), but
even seeing him in a T shirt is enough to make most people point and
laugh. Just a big fat cunt TBH.
Paul C
>
> 5. Top Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson has an injunction against publication
> of naked intimate photographs of himself and a woman.
I'd have thought the Rest of the World would have taken out an
injunction if he'd threatened to publish such a picture.
tim....
"HW" <h...@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:iq4cuj$g0e$1...@news.datemas.de...
> Several super injunctions are currently in place in the UK, banning the
> press from publishing details of various events involving high profile
> individuals.
>
> Here are the details of some:
>
> 1. Manchester United footballer Ryan Giggs had an extramarital affair with
> Big Brother star Imogen Thomas which lasted for 7 months. Giggs is
> believed to have now confessed all to his wife but the injunction still
> remains in place.
>
> 2. British comedian/actor David Schneider is said to have a keen interest
> in BDSM and has made several visits to spanking establishments to engage
> in the spanking/whipping of women. His wife is not believed to know.
>
> 3. TV chef Gordon Ramsay is said to have sexually harassed one female
> employee and sacked a male employee for no reason. The man is alleging age
> discrimination. He is still owed wages by Ramsay.
I would have thought that if this allegation were true the resultant court
action was a matter of public record.
I can't see how an injunction would stop it being reported
tim
Zapp Brannigan
> Several super injunctions are currently in place in the UK, banning the
> press from publishing details of various events involving high profile
> individuals.
>
> Here are the details of some:
>
> 1. Manchester United footballer Ryan Giggs had an extramarital affair
> in
> BDSM
> employee and sacked a male employee for no reason.
> the services of prostitute
> publication
> of naked intimate photographs of himself and a woman.
>
> 6. Two stars of the British TV show Shameless, David Threlfall (Frank
> Gallagher) and Pauline McLynn (Libby Croker) had an affair.
Thanks - a bit of salacious gossip is always welcome, but I'm not sure what
public interest would justify the media reporting these stories anyway. I
wouldn't want the tabloids shouting about my marriage and sexual interests,
and these people have the same right to basic privacy imho.
nigel
If you're getting paid shedloads of sponsorship money and image rights
based on your being an upstanding family man, the public has every right
to know that you're defrauding them.
Unless you're a corrupt brown-noser like David Eady, the finest judge
that money can buy.
Zapp Brannigan
> Zapp Brannigan wrote:
>> Thanks - a bit of salacious gossip is always welcome, but I'm not sure
>> what
>> public interest would justify the media reporting these stories anyway.
>> I
>> wouldn't want the tabloids shouting about my marriage and sexual
>> interests,
>> and these people have the same right to basic privacy imho.
>
> If you're getting paid shedloads of sponsorship money and image rights
> based on your being an upstanding family man, the public has every right
> to know that you're defrauding them.
That's the tabloid excuse, yes. But I don't buy it. Firstly, how many of
these people have promoted themselves as upstanding family men, to their
financial advantage? And even if they had done that, the "right to know
the truth" would belong to whoever was paying them (not to the entire 7
billion residents of this planet).
The tabloids think that they are above the law, that they can steal our
phone messages and telephoto through our bedroom curtains. They think that
they can accuse and convict innocent people with foul allegations (eg Chris
Jefferies in Bristol), and make up stories which ruin the lives of ordinary
people (http://tinyurl.com/64v7rtw).
It's a shame that our standards have fallen so low, and I welcome the
application of swingeing injuctions and fines for as long as necessary to
bring the media back into line with their own professional codes of
practice.
nigel
> nigel wrote:
>
>>Zapp Brannigan wrote:
>
>
>>>Thanks - a bit of salacious gossip is always welcome, but I'm not sure
>>>what
>>>public interest would justify the media reporting these stories anyway.
>>>I
>>>wouldn't want the tabloids shouting about my marriage and sexual
>>>interests,
>>>and these people have the same right to basic privacy imho.
>>
>>If you're getting paid shedloads of sponsorship money and image rights
>>based on your being an upstanding family man, the public has every right
>>to know that you're defrauding them.
>
>
> That's the tabloid excuse, yes. But I don't buy it. Firstly, how many of
> these people have promoted themselves as upstanding family men, to their
> financial advantage?
You've never seen Ryan Giggs in TV adverts?
> And even if they had done that, the "right to know
> the truth" would belong to whoever was paying them (not to the entire 7
> billion residents of this planet).
But the population of this country are ultimately the people who pay for
those sponsorship deals and image rights, by buying products and
services associated with those people. Individuals shouldn't be able to
pick and choose what bits of their character are revealed to the public
- if they're publicly promoting themselves it should be all or nothing.
Just imagine that nice Herr Hitler promoting dog food on TV, because he
had a reputation of being kind to dogs, while buying an Eadyjunction to
cover up the Holocaust. An extreme extension perhaps but the principle's
the same.
> The tabloids think that they are above the law, that they can steal our
> phone messages and telephoto through our bedroom curtains. They think that
> they can accuse and convict innocent people with foul allegations (eg Chris
> Jefferies in Bristol), and make up stories which ruin the lives of ordinary
> people (http://tinyurl.com/64v7rtw).
On balance our press are pretty good. The News of the World went over
the top with their phone tapping and they're going to pay for it. I'm
not familiar with the other cases, but Chris Jeffries was arrested and
bailed and therefore a legitimate person of interest, and he can sue if
he feels he was defamed. Juliet Shaw seems to have a hyperactive
imagination and based on her blog I have little sympathy for her.
> It's a shame that our standards have fallen so low, and I welcome the
> application of swingeing injuctions and fines for as long as necessary to
> bring the media back into line with their own professional codes of
> practice.
I'd prefer to live in a country with free speech, rather than with a
class of rich people who can do the crime but buy their way out of any
consequences.
Periander
news:92nf9c...@mid.individual.net:
I suppose it had to happen eventually but I actually agree with
everything your write above.
--
Regards,
Periander
Wicked Moo
injunctions and my belief that these injunctions are a misuse of the
legal system
I'm waiting for a judge to grow a pair and refuse the injunction, and
say that cases going through the courts are a matter of public record,
and the application and surrounding details then become public
knowledge!
Mike Hall
The other woman is apparently Jemima Khan. Still not interested?
Wicked Moo
Would be more interesting if it was Divine Brown! (Hugh Grant's ex!)
kat
tim.... <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> said
It has been - with the participants labelled by letters. Apparently the
injunction prevents the naming of the parties, and also the publication of
the terms of the injunction, and the reasons for it. It stands until the
actual case is heard, when it will be decided if it should continue.
Assuming that letters did refer to Ramsey et al. :-)
--
kat
>^..^<
nigel
> I wouldn't be interested in the slightest if it wasn't for the
> injunctions and my belief that these injunctions are a misuse of the
> legal system.
The pertinent act stipulates that the presumption should be in favour of
free speech. Therefore you'd expect a significant number of Eadyjunction
applications to be refused, if not the majority. Instead almost without
exception they're nodded through.
> I'm waiting for a judge to grow a pair and say "No, you can't have the
> injunction, and all court records are a matter of public record"
> meaning that the mere fact that they applied for one, and the
> circumstances would be public record, and for all the world to see!
Our judiciary is in a perilously poor state because it's self-governing.
The warning signs have been there for a long time, hence the
sticking-plaster law that lenient sentences can be appealed, and the
Americans passing laws to stop libel cases being heard in this country
by dodgy judges like Eady.
Even Judge Judge, normally one of the better ones, made a crass appeal
to the media to stop reporting cases because it made a laughing-stock of
the judiciary, completely missing the point that poor quality judges
passing perverse rulings are the reason they're a laughing stock.
nigel
Wow. He must have a very large personality for Jemima to stoop to those
depths.
Rupert Bear
Oh Here Here,,
Where have Moo an Nigel been hiding..
People who fill our ears with the tacky an cheap usage
of secrecy laws,, help to protect them..
I saw an editor discussin this topic last week on
Breakfast tv,,
and he was ever so keen to talk about them but the lady
hosting kept interupting when he got going...Tsk Tsk..
Anyway I got the message that there are a lot of
secret doings going on out there that the press are aware of
and would just luv to have a go at..
Perhaps they would leave the celebs alone a bit more
if only they could get at the more serious stuff,, tied up
with the law hiding behind closed doors...
..........................................................................................
Zapp Brannigan
I'm surprised he isn't sending the pictures to the press himself, that's
quite a notch in the bedpost for a man like him (or me!).
Mike Hall
Nah, was just a rumour, probably started by Clarkson himself.
My guess is that the woman was ugly, hence the superinjunction.
Mike Hall
Mike Hall
> > The other woman is apparently Jemima Khan. Still not interested?
> Would be more interesting if it was Divine Brown! (Hugh Grant's ex!)
Not it wouldn't. Non-religious celebs using prostitutes is only news
if they are male, underage or anything to do with Wayne Rooney.
Mike Hall
The Todal
"nigel" <use...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Js6dndeKZ9DjLVvQ...@brightview.co.uk...
> Wicked Moo wrote:
>
>> I wouldn't be interested in the slightest if it wasn't for the
>> injunctions and my belief that these injunctions are a misuse of the
>> legal system.
>
> The pertinent act stipulates that the presumption should be in favour of
> free speech.
Which pertinent act (or Act) would that be, professor?
> Therefore you'd expect a significant number of Eadyjunction applications
> to be refused, if not the majority. Instead almost without exception
> they're nodded through.
No, they aren't nodded through. Have you ever taken the trouble to read the
lengthy judgments of Mr Justice Eady?
>
>> I'm waiting for a judge to grow a pair and say "No, you can't have the
>> injunction, and all court records are a matter of public record"
>> meaning that the mere fact that they applied for one, and the
>> circumstances would be public record, and for all the world to see!
>
> Our judiciary is in a perilously poor state because it's self-governing.
> The warning signs have been there for a long time, hence the
> sticking-plaster law that lenient sentences can be appealed, and the
> Americans passing laws to stop libel cases being heard in this country by
> dodgy judges like Eady.
>
> Even Judge Judge, normally one of the better ones, made a crass appeal to
> the media to stop reporting cases because it made a laughing-stock of the
> judiciary, completely missing the point that poor quality judges passing
> perverse rulings are the reason they're a laughing stock.
They aren't a laughing stock at all. You have misquoted "Judge Judge" and
you have fallen for the lies put out by the tabloids.
nigel
Jeremy Clarkson is a petrolhead, a well known method of compensating for
a small penis. Imran Khan is thin and wiry so has a small penis too.
Jemima obviously goes for underendowed men so you'd be too big for her :(
Mike Tomlinson
.com>, Mike Hall <tar...@yahoo.com> writes
>The other woman is apparently Jemima Khan. Still not interested?
Can you really see her being interested in shagging Clarkson?
--
Mike Tomlinson
GB
>>> 3. TV chef [Redacted] is said to have...
>>> sacked a male employee for no reason. The man is
>>> alleging age discrimination. He is still owed wages ....
I cannot believe the courts would grant an injunction over an alleged unfair
dismissal case on grounds of age. So, what's going on? Just rumour?
Mike Hall
> In article <f5eb6910-3804-414c-80e8-d422ce7af...@s2g2000yql.googlegroups
> .com>, Mike Hall <tar...@yahoo.com> writes
>
> >The other woman is apparently Jemima Khan. Still not interested?
>
> Can you really see her being interested in shagging Clarkson?
I admit it. I was bitter (Why can't I have life experiences like that
to superinjunction?) until she denied it. Now you have made me cry!
I hope you are satisfied?
Mike Hall
allantracy
> That's the tabloid excuse, yes. But I don't buy it. Firstly, how many of
> these people have promoted themselves as upstanding family men, to their
> financial advantage? And even if they had done that, the "right to know
> the truth" would belong to whoever was paying them (not to the entire 7
> billion residents of this planet).
>
> The tabloids think that they are above the law, that they can steal our
> phone messages and telephoto through our bedroom curtains. They think that
> they can accuse and convict innocent people with foul allegations (eg Chris
> Jefferies in Bristol), and make up stories which ruin the lives of ordinary
> people (http://tinyurl.com/64v7rtw).
>
> It's a shame that our standards have fallen so low, and I welcome the
> application of swingeing injuctions and fines for as long as necessary to
> bring the media back into line with their own professional codes of
> practice.
Some of these injunctions have been sought to keep the wife in the
dark.
Do you not think she at least might have a right to know where that
dose of clap might have miraculously materialised from, other than the
toilet seat?
nigel
> "nigel" <use...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:Js6dndeKZ9DjLVvQ...@brightview.co.uk...
>
>>Wicked Moo wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I wouldn't be interested in the slightest if it wasn't for the
>>>injunctions and my belief that these injunctions are a misuse of the
>>>legal system.
>>
>>The pertinent act stipulates that the presumption should be in favour of
>>free speech.
>
>
> Which pertinent act (or Act) would that be, professor?
>
The sneering tone leads me to believe that it's a trick question.
>
>
>>Therefore you'd expect a significant number of Eadyjunction applications
>>to be refused, if not the majority. Instead almost without exception
>>they're nodded through.
>
>
> No, they aren't nodded through.
How many Eadyjunctions have been denied? Even John Terry's original
Eadyjunction was nodded through at the first time of asking, before a
sane judge threw it out.
Recently judges have taken to doing a bit of tweaking to try to dodge
the claims that they're nodding them through, but for the guilty parties
it has effectively made no difference - only the women seem to be losing
out.
One celeb has been granted three Eadyjunctions against three different
women while cashing in on his reputation as a good, honest family man
whose wife has just had a baby.
> Have you ever taken the trouble to read the
> lengthy judgments of Mr Justice Eady?
Just summaries.
He's clearly operating to a hidden agenda. He even said he was going to
take a step back from what he was doing in the area of privacy law, but
it seems the puppeteer pulling his strings won't let him - he's still
issuing Eadyjunctions.
>
>
>>>I'm waiting for a judge to grow a pair and say "No, you can't have the
>>>injunction, and all court records are a matter of public record"
>>>meaning that the mere fact that they applied for one, and the
>>>circumstances would be public record, and for all the world to see!
>>
>>Our judiciary is in a perilously poor state because it's self-governing.
>>The warning signs have been there for a long time, hence the
>>sticking-plaster law that lenient sentences can be appealed, and the
>>Americans passing laws to stop libel cases being heard in this country by
>>dodgy judges like Eady.
>>
>>Even Judge Judge, normally one of the better ones, made a crass appeal to
>>the media to stop reporting cases because it made a laughing-stock of the
>>judiciary, completely missing the point that poor quality judges passing
>>perverse rulings are the reason they're a laughing stock.
>
>
> They aren't a laughing stock at all. You have misquoted "Judge Judge" and
> you have fallen for the lies put out by the tabloids.
So he didn't ask the media to stop reporting?
Actually the tabloids understated the situation. 'Laughing stock'
suggests there's some humour in the situation, but there's nothing funny
about judges making irrational judgments with no basis in law wrecking
people's lives. And they can't be stopped because judges are virtually
unsackable.