Twitter to notify users of legal action against them...

Biggins

Gummy Panda wrote: »

...It just promotes the story more when you are trying to suppress it.

Aye, talk about being your own worst enemy.

Madness. If he goes away quietly and tries to repair his marriage, others will have more respect for him.
If he stupidly decided to drag this matter out further, it will just help to keep the papers happy for months, if not years.

If he does nothing except keep his head down now, the press will eventually more so get tired, bored and more on to the next story about someone else.

Da Shins Kelly

The Left Hand Of God wrote: »

If it not some rich famous person who had the injunction then it would be wrong to name them?

It seems because it is a rich famous person it is OK to go against a court judgement.

Anyone else it is bad to go against a court judgement.

OK. I'll make note of that for the future.

Injunctions shouldn't exist to protect people for issues as petty as this. It's different if someone is being accused of or has been the victim of a very serious crime. Issuing injunctions to protect people who are idiots and thereby enforcing censorship in the media is entirely different. Ryan Giggs is a public figure. He should know that being a bellend is going to have repercussions for his rep and public image. Of course people are going to talk about it. What is he expecting? It's the nature of the media today.

And just because it's a court order doesn't make it right. If the courts decided tomorrow that we should burn all books, should we do it just because the courts say we should? It's an issue of free speech, and one person trying to impede on other people's rights to it just because he's a fool. That's not right, and the courts shouldn't be supporting it.

And anyway, an injunction issued by a British court should have no effect on people from other countries. Since when have British courts had any power over other countries?

Paully D

niallo24 wrote: »

:eek:

Only joking

Mr.Micro

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

Injunctions shouldn't exist to protect people for issues as petty as this.

And anyway, an injunction issued by a British court should have no effect on people from other countries. Since when have British courts had any power over other countries?

The whole point of injunctions was to protect someone whose life was under threat or to protect a minor. The current use is total abuse of the system and most legal people would agree. Its gone too far to protect the likes of playing away has been footballers.

Chnandler Bong

Mr.Micro wrote: »

The multitude are punished for the antics of some little s*it with a lovely left foot.

FYP:D

K-9

SOCCER4LIFE wrote: »

As already stated, the media injunction covered any material that is accessible in Britain. Content on Twitter is most certainly accessible in Britain. It was covered under the injunction, Giggs' legal team are well within their rights to take action, do you think they would have gone this far if they weren't?

Don't know how the Scottish Herald got away with it then?

HellFireClub

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

Injunctions shouldn't exist to protect people for issues as petty as this. It's different if someone is being accused of or has been the victim of a very serious crime. Issuing injunctions to protect people who are idiots and thereby enforcing censorship in the media is entirely different. Ryan Giggs is a public figure. He should know that being a bellend is going to have repercussions for his rep and public image. Of course people are going to talk about it. What is he expecting? It's the nature of the media today.

And just because it's a court order doesn't make it right. If the courts decided tomorrow that we should burn all books, should we do it just because the courts say we should? It's an issue of free speech, and one person trying to impede on other people's rights to it just because he's a fool. That's not right, and the courts shouldn't be supporting it.

And anyway, an injunction issued by a British court should have no effect on people from other countries. Since when have British courts had any power over other countries?

+1, in Gigg's case, he has made a lot of money out of sponsorship deals representing himself as a decent and honest person, being paid huge sums of money by sponsors such as Reebok, Sovil Titus, Citizen Watches, Givenchy, Fuji, Patek Phillipe, Quorn Burgers, ITV Digital and Celcom, to name just a few.

When he then proves himself to be an embarrassemnt to his sponsors by virtue of his underhand and scheming behaviour, should it really and seriously be open to him, by way of a judicial application, to prevent media organisations from discussing his actual sexually deviant behaviour?!? I say no it should not, not when he is misleading people and cleaning up through sponsorship deals by misleading people...

Biggins

K-9 wrote: »

Don't know how the Scottish Herald got away with it then?

They (the MI6/MI5) couldn't even touch a Mr Wright (and his book "Spycatcher") the last time in Scotland and the same type of gagging order was applied.
So in all honesty, if MI6/MI5 couldn't do it - Mr Giggs is seriously fooling himself into thinking he can go one better than even them!
What a fcukin' ego!

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spycatcher

...English newspapers attempting proper reportage of Spycatcher's principal allegations were served gag orders; on persisting, they were tried for contempt of court, although the charges were eventually dropped. Throughout all this, the book continued to be sold in Scotland; moreover, Scottish newspapers were not subject to any English gag order, and continued to report on the affair.

...in 1988, the book was cleared for legitimate sale when the Law Lords acknowledged that overseas publication meant it contained no secrets. However, Wright was barred from receiving royalties from the sale of the book in the United Kingdom. In November 1991, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the British government had breached the European Convention of Human Rights in gagging its own newspapers.

Blatter

K-9 wrote: »

Don't know how the Scottish Herald got away with it then?

Sorry, England and Wales. The Scottish Hearld were walking a tightrope and felt they could do it because the had stopped selling newspapers in England and Wales.

ShooterSF

Biggins wrote: »

So in other words, the English courts think they can decide the world over what is can be said?
I'm sorry (my comment NOT aimed at you) but thats bollox.

We sent England packing and no foreign country is going to try and tell me what I can or cannot say from my own soil unless they come after me previously with an Irish legal document.


It was in their right to stop the British press if they wish. Its not in their right to stop the worlds press or methods of communication.
Who the fcuk does the English lawlords think they are!
They can go fcuk themselves. There is a principle here about them fcukwits overextending their powers.

This is still the Republic of Ireland - not still another state of the British empire.


Working for me.

didn't germany extradite an aussie in the UK for posting Holocaust denial posts on his aussie website?

I think he was born in germany but lived in Australia and posted there too but they seemed to think they had a case..

jive

Biggins you can't be charged with anything as the law doesn't apply over here AFAIK (I don't know how the accessible in England thing works, I mean it was all over the internet already so they can't charge that many people, totally implausible). That's why the Scottish Herald could go ahead and publish it as long as they didn't sell the paper in England, or so I've read. I don't know the ins and outs of it but even if you were in England you wouldn't be charged with anything. They can't charge everybody who mentioned it as it's something like 75,000 - going to bring them all to court? :rolleyes: For someone who didn't want it to get out he's doing a good job of making sure it escalates to massive levels!

HellFireClub

Biggins wrote: »

They (the MI6/MI5) couldn't even touch a Mr Wright (and his book "Sypcatcher") the last time in Scotland and the same type of gagging order was applied.
So in all honesty, if MI6/MI5 couldn't do it - Mr Giggs is seriously fooling himself into thinking he can go one better than even them!
What a fcukin' ego!

I think you said it earlier Biggins or maybe it was another poster, but whoever is advising this man in terms of the PR end of things, needs to be replaced. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw Max Clifford coming out to the podium in the morning spinning that Giggs was in the middle of a nervous breakdown.

It's hard to see how any man lacks the humility to know that when you are caught you are caught, fess up and get on with it and whatever you do, don't threaten to take ordinary decent people into court under the threat of jail terms and don't end up in a situation whereby journalists are fighting off thugs in balaclava's outside of your house...

Biggins

ShooterSF wrote: »

didn't Germany extradite an aussie in the UK for posting Holocaust denial posts on his aussie website?

I think he was born in germany but lived in Australia and posted there too but they seemed to think they had a case..

Yes but Germany used pre-existing English laws that pertained to the breaking of a law (the exact one I can't remember) that facilitated his arrest and subsequent trial.

K-9

SOCCER4LIFE wrote: »

Sorry, England and Wales. The Scottish Hearld were walking a tightrope and felt they could do it because the had stopped selling newspapers in England and Wales.

@Biggins, vaguely remember Spycatcher. John Stalker was another one and he got ways around it.

That shows how pointless it is SOCCER4LIFE, Rooney didn't bother with this, I suspect because of the Streisand effect. Once you try and curtail the net expect it to get 10 times worse.

Unless a court rules it's worldwide and eternal, somebody will find a way around it and then we are reaching absurd levels as Have I got News for you thrive on.

Tbh, I don't care about what some footballer, BB star, British actor etc. do in their spare time, I do care about what a cabinet minister or a judge are up to if they are being hypocritical about it.

Biggins

HellFireClub wrote: »

I think you said it earlier Biggins or maybe it was another poster, but whoever is advising this man in terms of the PR end of things, needs to be replaced. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw Max Clifford coming out to the podium in the morning spinning that Giggs was in the middle of a nervous breakdown.

It's hard to see how any man lacks the humility to know that when you are caught you are caught, fess up and get on with it and whatever you do, don't threaten to take ordinary decent people into court under the threat of jail terms and don't end up in a situation whereby journalists are fighting off thugs in balaclava's outside of your house...

It was me.

Yes, Giggs is listening too much to his lawyers rather than his PR people at the moment.
He is ROYALLY screwing things up even worse now. Big time.
(And I honestly didn't think that was further possible!)

Biggins

K-9 wrote: »

...Tbh, I don't care about what some footballer, BB star, British actor etc. do in their spare time, I do care about what a cabinet minister or a judge are up to if they are being hypocritical about it.

Exact same thoughts here.

The Left Hand Of God

I actually agree. Personal opinion and motivation out ways other things.

What I think is good is good. And what I think bad is bad.

I am allowed to.

K-9

Biggins wrote: »

It was me.

Yes, Giggs is listening too much to his lawyers rather than his PR people at the moment.
He is ROYALLY screwing things up even worse now. Big time.
(And I honestly didn't think that was further possible!)

Streisand effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

At least Rooney had sense! As for his legal team, they should have sought an injunction in Scotland.

Blatter

K-9 wrote: »

@Biggins, vaguely remember Spycatcher. John Stalker was another one and he got ways around it.

That shows how pointless it is SOCCER4LIFE, Rooney didn't bother with this, I suspect because of the Streisand effect. Once you try and curtail the net expect it to get 10 times worse.

Unless a court rules it's worldwide and eternal, somebody will find a way around it and then we are reaching absurd levels as Have I got News for you thrive on.

Tbh, I don't care about what some footballer, BB star, British actor etc. do in their spare time, I do care about what a cabinet minister or a judge are up to if they are being hypocritical about it.

But the UK courts effectively claim worldwide jurisdiction with the wording of the injunction. Even though England and Wales are the only two countries named in the injunction, it is the ''any material that is widely accessible in these countries..'' lays a claim to the tweets breaking it.

Giggs' lawyers are on to it. Do you think they would be wasting their time on this if it was so clear cut that the people who tweeted his name are innocent?

ShooterSF

Biggins wrote: »

Yes but Germany used pre-existing English laws that pertained to the breaking of a law (the exact one I can't remember) that facilitated his arrest and subsequent trial.

interesting. Especially as the only thing that England had to do with it is he was in that country when arrested. Maybe you should stay out of the UK

Biggins

The Left Hand Of God wrote: »

I actually agree. Personal opinion and motivation out ways other things.
What I think is good is good. And what I think bad is bad.
I am allowed to.

...And long may you be able to say so.

...At least Rooney had sense! As for his legal team, they should have sought an injunction in Scotland.

Aye, For the supposed best they make themselves out to be - they did screw things up big time too.
They should have known better. I bet someone got the sack for that legal slip-up.

Biggins

ShooterSF wrote: »

...Maybe you should stay out of the UK

Maybe they will do what Israel did once. Send in a kidnap team.
Maybe a bunch of lads sent over in a van?

O' wait... :eek:

K-9

SOCCER4LIFE wrote: »

But the UK courts effectively claim worldwide jurisdiction with the wording of the injunction. Even though England and Wales are the only two countries named in the injunction, it is the ''any material that is widely accessible in these countries..'' lays a claim to the tweets breaking it.

Giggs' lawyers are on to it. Do you think they would be wasting their time on this if it was so clear cut that the people who tweeted his name are innocent?

Well it worked out well for him, didn't it? He was extremely badly advised and should just drop it.

Misty Chaos

I would just love it if someone who belongs to Anonymous gets such a court notice, the fun that would happen then.

Blatter

K-9 wrote: »

Well it worked out well for him, didn't it? He was extremely badly advised and should just drop it.

I'm not arguing against the fact that it hasn't worked out well for him, I'm just saying that there are grounds to which the tweets broke the injunction. That's the only point I was trying to put across.

Biggins

SOCCER4LIFE wrote: »

I'm not arguing against the fact that it hasn't worked out well for him, I'm just saying that there are grounds to which the tweets broke the injunction. That's the only point I was trying to put across.

Absolutely fair enough.
We will just have to wait and see (1) if he kops himself on and (2) if he can do what no government alone has been able to do even with their known and unknown resources.
I don't think myself in the long run, he has a legal basis that can be successfully applied beyond English borders.
It will take an absolute miracle of epic proportions - and even worse - will even bigger screw things up for him and drag the current farce on well beyond the time when it should have just fizzled out.

Blatter

Biggins wrote: »

Absolutely fair enough.
We will just have to wait and see (1) if he kops himself on and (2) if he can do what no government alone has been able to do even with their known and unknown resources.
I don't think myself in the long run, he has a legal basis that can be successfully applied beyond English borders.
It will take an absolute miracle of epic proportions - and even worse - will even bigger screw things up for him and drag the current farce on well beyond the time when it should have just fizzled out.

For what it's worth, I'm absolutely sure that nothing will happen to you or anyone else. I was only saying there are potentially grounds there on which he would technically be allowed to pursue, although nothing in this whole farce is clear cut.

When the news first broke about the Twitter legal case, I was almost sure it was just to frighten other media outlets that were thinking about naming him and Giggs was hoping that would help the whole thing to fizzle out. Obviously if that was his intention, it backfired.

Biggins

SOCCER4LIFE wrote: »

...Obviously if that was his intention, it backfired.

Aye, big time (and honestly I take no pleasure from saying that).
He's being VERY badly advised and/or by the wrong people.

Latchy

How boring is it following the life's of these celebs when it was all going on pre-internet days anyway , behind closed doors away from prying eyes and a time of different strokes for different folks . People had affairs ,famous and non famous alike and they still do and it's the spouses who you feel sorry for . The whole Giggs debacle is like watching a dog chase it's tail with the whole world watching and a case of Twitter swallowing itself up it's own arse .

Einhard

What Giggs is doing is absolutely idiotic and moronic, and his lawyers and advisers should be sacked ASAP for steering him down this route, or at least not doing their utmost to prevent this course of action. The use of injunctions should also be fundamentally overhauled.

However, I do think that people have a right to their private lives. None of us here have an automatic perogative to know who someone else is shagging- since when has that become a right? Sure, there are instances when such infiedlity is in the public interest- in cases of rank hypocrisy etc- but that shouldn't be assumed. I think people should have the right to a private life, with limits, and that this should be protected by the law.

HellFireClub

SOCCER4LIFE wrote: »

But the UK courts effectively claim worldwide jurisdiction with the wording of the injunction. Even though England and Wales are the only two countries named in the injunction, it is the ''any material that is widely accessible in these countries..'' lays a claim to the tweets breaking it.

Giggs' lawyers are on to it. Do you think they would be wasting their time on this if it was so clear cut that the people who tweeted his name are innocent?

And that's the very bit that I take exception to. I remember when the first news story broke on this subject, a spokesman for the law firm that was representing Giggs, (while representing an "anonynous client"), stood out in front of the Bow Street Magistrates Court in London, and threatened anybody who had tweeted about a person who had secured an injunction prohibiting discussion of their behaviour, without any mention of their relevant citizenship), that they would be imminently arrested, on the basis of them being in contempt of a court order.

I'm an Irish citizen, the last thing in the world that I'm bound by is a UK court order, and I take huge exception to broad yet empty legal threats issued against me and others in this country, by an English legal firm that is impotent in this jurisdiction.

HellFireClub

Einhard wrote: »

However, I do think that people have a right to their private lives.

This guy has made millions of Euro in corporate sponsorship, by misrepresenting himself as a clean cut family man.

On this basis, he has mislead people by hiding his sexual deviance, for financial reward. Do you think any of his sponsors, (who have paid him millions of pounds because they think that he can "connect" with ordinary decent people who might identify with him), would have done so, if they knew that he was just another English footballer who had his c*ck at the controls???

When you mislead your sponsors, you mislead the people that your sponsors are paying you to connect with I think, as in the ordinary Joe, hence why when this kind of stuff comes to surface, your sponsors tend to be gone within a week or so because as they see it, you have contaminated your own brand...

This little runt was so hungry and greedy, he wanted it every which way... He wanted the sponsors and by extension, the average Joe who the sponsors were paying him to connect with, to think that he was Christ Almighty, while at the same time he went around having questionable relationships with Z list celebs while being a married man at the same time, the same marriage and family situation that was drawing corporate sponsorship to him by perceiving him as being a "safe pair of hands".

So he took his millions in sponsorship while at the same time going to the courts to get gagging orders when he discovered that he was not as he had represented himself to his corporate sponsors recently?!?

Get up da f*k, I'm just glad I'm not a UK subject and I can speak my opinion at liberty here...

DOC09UNAM

Biggins wrote: »

I was NOT served with a British media injunction.
I was telling the truth.
I would not Tweet about a child. EVER. I too have standards - unlike Giggs when it comes to how kids should take preference!

The truth?


Were you present at the time to verify it's the truth?

Because there's no other way you can prove it's the truth, no matter how much you might think so.

shannon_tek

So what have i missed cause if some bobby comes knocking on my door. i will just close it. cause id rather keep my plans to take over the world kept in secret.:D but seriously do i have to take down my tweeter account which consists of 182 posts 5 asking how the F*** do i use this thing ha ha and the rest youtube

Biggins

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

The truth?
Were you present at the time to verify it's the truth?

Because there's no other way you can prove it's the truth, no matter how much you might think so.

No way?
Actually, if I was served with some sort of legal document, I would be in my right to request legal redress, summon the presence of the Imogen Thomas as to verify the facts of the matter.
Truth or lie would then be verified as to the matter directly.

I seriously doubt she is suddenly going to amazingly reverse her story that she has been saying for months.

The Left Hand Of God

Biggins wrote: »

On that we will have to agree to disagree.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056281218

Biggins wrote: »

I for one don't know the FULL evidence that was presented to the court.
While puzzled as to why the light sentence, I must acknowledge that I don't know the full picture (if there is one) and as from sentence to sentence, must judge each one accordingly as best I can - with equal fairness as if it was anyone else.

Biggins wrote: »

If it is a blot - it should be rectified - if its not (and we don't know as to FULL details), we should err on the side of caution and accept judgements that we even might not agree with.
.

Cianos

A movement should get going where everyone tweets the most slanderous outrageous bile you can fit in 140 characters - like draw mohammad day.