Who is footballer with injunction

The Manchester United and former Wales player agreed to lift the anonymity injunction in a hearing at the high court in London on Tuesday. Giggs brought the injunction in April last year to prevent the Sun from publishing claims that he had an extra-marital affair with the model and former Big Brother contestant Imogen Thomas. But the gagging order was flouted by thousands of people who identified the footballer on Twitter and Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming, who used parliamentary privilege to name him in the House of Commons.

Hugh Tomlinson QC, counsel for Giggs, told the court that the footballer had been subject to "large scale breaches of the order by malign individuals". Mr Justice Tugendhat said: "Anonymity no longer applies and has not applied since 1 February. Tugendhat is considering a claim by Giggs for damages for alleged misuse of private information by the Sun. The footballer also seeks an injunction to restrain future publication of private information. Earlier on Monday, the prime minister told ITV1's Daybreak that banning newspapers from naming such stars while the information was widely available on the internet was both "unsustainable" and "unfair".

In another case brought by a separate footballer, known to the court as TSE, a High Court judge ruled on Monday that comments on Twitter about the private life of a famous person did not mean there should be no injunction preventing newspapers from publishing stories about him.

Midfielder Ryan Giggs, 37, is Manchester United's most senior player, having appeared in games. He celebrated with the team at Old Trafford on Sunday as they were crowned English league champions for a record 19th time, and is expected to be in the squad to face Barcelona in Saturday's European Champions League final at Wembley.

The player, who made 64 appearances for Wales before retiring from international football in , was awarded an OBE that year. Breaking super-injunctions. Profile: Ryan Giggs. Profile: Imogen Thomas. Paper names Twitter claims player. They are protected, by the Human Rights Act. They're also protected by the offence of blackmail, although in a different and on the whole less efficient way. Tyler, what is the matter with you?

Eady didn't have to give the slightest consideration to whether it took place or not. Giggs is entitled not to have these stories published whether it took place or not, and demanding money not to print it is blackmail whether it took place or not and in addition whether publication would otherwise be legal or not. There will not be a blackmail trial I predict because Giggs will not make a complaint to the authorities, and in practice although not I think necessarily in theory the authorities won't pursue it without one.

But in any case from your own quote:- "and press upon them duties to their citizens following the model of the rights-duty duality. I don't understand you. That is a question of practicality.

Of course. You seem to be mistaking me for an idiot. I'm not sure they do. How exactly th law's going to cover that is the question, but it would be rather a sad day if the conclusion were that numedia made it so easy for individuals who don't approve of the courts to bypass them that nothing could be done. I doubt if it's very trivial to the people concerned. In any case there's nothig difficult about it; various public people have taken it upon themselves knowingly to breach an injunction because they don't like the law.

They're hardly going to deny it; most of them have been boasting about it. The A-G's warning about how they might face heavy damages claims, of course, was typical weaselry of the type you'd expect from Grieve.

They won't, of course - that would be a civil claim which would require proof that their particular tweets had been critical in causing damage. It's code for "we could prosecute you and fine you for contempt of court but we aren't going to because that would be politically unpop;ular. Rather than suggesting massively authoritarian measures to keep the tide back, it would be wiser to acknowledge modern reality and adapt to live with it. I don't know. I think once Assange's source has been sentenced to 20 years he might find he doesn't get stuff quite so easily thereafter.

But in any case Wikileaks is rather different; there is a public interest defence or would be here; the US doesn't seem to have one in quite the same way. I'm not so sure privacy isn't possible either.

If it hadn't been for Hemming's irresponsibility, there would still have been no headlines and no pack of paparazzi outside Giggs' house. I agree everyone will have to adapt to a certain extent, but it would be strange to give up what Europe has declared a human right overnight just because one MP doesn't agree and a few twitterers and football crowds behave badly.

This conversation isn't very useful if you're just going to make stuff up. Ms T was there at the second hearing and expensively represented as she has been ever since; the reason she wasn't at the first is in paragraph 4. She's had every opportunity to reply, and there is no finding whatever about whether or not the affair took place, nor indeed about what the texts about money meant or even who sent them.

Look, you've lost me. I've no idea whether a blackmail prosecution would be successful. I haven't seen even the evidence Eady had before him, let alone heard the parties cross-examined. Coire Bog 25 May In reply to johncoxmysteriously: Oh dear, this is pretty sad the amount of time you guys spend getting worked up about this. Offwidth 25 May In reply to winhill: This is wonderful in my view.

Exposes lots of stuff that is really dodgy in UK law. Access to this law only really being available to the rich. What would be prostitution and blackmail for ordinary folk become 'services' and 'business transactions'.

The judges make decisions on their own and we are expected to trust them. MPs use Parliament to play naughty games. The gutter press come out smelling of manure and pay lots of money to achieve this. Paparrazi get flour, eggs and slashed tyres. A 'Hero' footballer gets exposed with his pants down because he listens to a layer and decides to pursue an impossible case against Twitter. Twitter and the like make mincemeat of the utility of the law in question.

Is the only downside is that some lawyers who specialise in this nasty business get paid loads? In reply to Tyler: For goodness' sake. Now you seem less sure so we are in agreement I'm still quite sure about that, because whether or not the facts the defendant was proposing to broadcast are true has no effect on the outcome of a blackmail case. This is a matter of law. It doesn't mean I'm sure that IT would be convicted.

I'm just sure that the jury wouldn't be interested in whether sex occurred. In reply to Offwidth: God, I get depressed reading such idiocy from the public.

I don't know why I bother, but I'll correct you as well. You are wrong. At the moment access to this law and quite a few other laws is more available to the poor than at any previous time, because of CFAs.

The government is presently proposing to restrict this access considerably. The public generally speaking holds two views; one that no-win no-fee agreements are Bad Things, and two, that law is only available to the rich and it's Not Fair. Luckily, the public never needs to join up its thinking. You've been listening to fantasists like Hemming. The judgment has been available on line in the usual places since the day after it was granted, and no-one has to trust the judge; if the defendants didn't like it they could have appealed and lost and got another judgment on line.

It didn't really show when you said she wasn't represented, given that what her legal representative said on her behalf is referred to many times. The difference between us is that you think that was a bad thing, whereas I prefer to reserve judgment given that we haven't seen the evidence the court was presented with. In reply to johncoxmysteriously: That was very much tongue in cheek of course delighted though I remain. Those working in law, grandstanding on a climbing website accusing Hemming of being a 'fantasist', the public of being idiots and appeals certain to be lost, of course are eminently upstanding and sensible.

On an equally frivolous point how big is this huge proportion of such injunctions occuring because of CFA's? I've no idea at all. And of course Naomi Campbell famously ran her privacy case on one. The Daily Mirror I think complained that its human rights had been breached, and I'm not sure they didn't go all the way to Strasbourg about it before losing.

So the newspapers see them as a threat. Mind you I should have said ignorance rather than idiocy. Tiggs 25 May In reply to johncoxmysteriously: Day off or a slow day in the office, O tough nut with a soft centre?

Schillings - Giggs lawyers used the blackmail claim to secure this injunction - a departure from the 'I must protect my family and their privacy' gig that is usually put before the courts. Surely where footballers are concerned and the huge sums they earn from commercial endorsements its about that and not anything to do with the poor wife and kids at home.

Also what about the human rights of the women in these cases? These injunctions are utterly draconian on those that are affected by them - surely you recognise that. The only people benefiting from them are the lawyers. In reply to Tiggs: For the love of God, Tiggs, have you never done anything foolish? What is it with this absurd censoriousness about how people should think of their children when shagging around?

It's never happened to me, but I suspect that if I were in a position where beautiful women threw themselves at me regularly, I might well find myself one night not thinking of my children as much as I should, and I rather suspect the same is true of many people. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't be very concerned about the impact on my children of stories in the newspapers about who put what where. What human rights? And what draconian effect on people affected by them?

You mean the right to publish their story in the Sun? You do know it's usual to prevent naming the woman with injunctions of this kind, and that the only reason that couldn't be done in this case was that Ms T had already been named by 'pals' in the Sun, don't you? No, they didn't. Saying you're being blackmailed does not entitle you to prevent publication. What entitles you to do that is the fact that kiss and tells are illegal, and were made illegal thirteen years ago. I've got no idea what it's about.

I'd imagine both. But it doesn't matter what it's about. It's very simple. Kiss and tells were made illegal by the Human Rights Act; publication of these stories is illegal, and injunctions are necessary because otherwise the press refuse to obey the law. That's all there is to it, really. Guy "Fawksey" Wilson 25 May In reply to fxceltic: The rich and famous get outed by the newspapers and celebrities.

The rest of us get outed by our colleagues, friends and family. I cant see a problem or a real difference. Alyson 25 May That is was has distinguished the Giggs injunction from previous injunctions.

Can I suggest you read the judgment itself? He explicitly said a that he made no finding about the blackmail and b that blackmail was a typical feature of this kind of case at least I can't be bothered to check if that was this judgment or another, but he's certainly said that.

The only relevance the demands for money have is that in order to obtain an injunction the claimant has to show there's a danger that the story will be published if an injunction is not granted. That was draconian and was clearly to protect his reputation and standing and to hell with the rights this was pre-human rights law of that child or indeed her mother.

In reply to Fawksey: You sod. Summed it up perfectly. Just because a bunch of lawyers in Strasbourg say we have a right to privacy doesn't make it true.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward: I have the odd moment of clarity. Eric9Points 25 May In reply to johncoxmysteriously: 'That injunction was obtained by Parkinson with Keays' express support. But now that Flora has turned 18 the court orders no longer apply so Flora and her mother have decided to tell their story to a national newspaper and to Channel 4. That's more how I remember it.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously: Is the law something other than something that people want and can be enforced? His affair was a long term one and Sarah Keyes IIRC correctly believed he was going to leave his wife for him after she became pregnant. Instead he sacked her. I think it can be argued that in such a case of spectacular hypocrisy it is in the public interest that people know about it.

It's an occupational hazard for professional footballers. Of course he should have known better but no one is perfect. In what way is it in the public interest to know that a slapper threw herself at a married man who happens to be good at kicking a ball about a field?

It still remains true that SK agreed to the injunction when it was obtained. In reply to johncoxmysteriously: 'The law is whatever Parliament enacts. As a citizen, I say the law is whatever either a everyone 'more or less' goes along with or b parliament can enforce or c Maybe they weren't quite so much beyond the UK jurisdiction as all that.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously: It will be interesting to see what happens if Hemming continues to abuse his position in the way he's threatened. Might we see a challenge to parliamentary privilege in the ECHR as being incompatible with article 8, I wonder? Lady Jane Grey 26 May Wonder if they have gone into hiding.

In reply to dissonance: No, fair point, but it doesn't sound like they're going to put up much of a fight. I'm quite curious myself now.