g1smd
msg:4316421 | 6:10 pm on May 23, 2011 (gmt 0) |
If said "celebrity" had kept his ***** in his pants then none of this would have happened.
I find it repugnant that people who are in the public eye, and who have zero discretion or morals, think they can do what they like without consequences - and then try to use the law to protect whatever they have done from the public gaze, by taking out a "superinjunction".
The UK legal system has better things to be doing than stopping newspapers printing "who is doing who" and who is "paying for services rendered" all supposedly without the wife knowing.
|
Samizdata
msg:4316426 | 6:30 pm on May 23, 2011 (gmt 0) |
This particular case does not involve a "superinjunction".
The term is used solely for a secret injunction, the very existence of which cannot be mentioned in the media. In this case, the applicant's name was withheld and another (named) party was gagged.
The UK does not have a single legal system.
A Scottish newspaper published details of the case on its front page, but was careful to restrict circulation to Scotland and omitted the story from its website.
/ pedantry
The funniest part of the Streisand Effect was the chants at the player's home football stadium.
He has now been named in Parliament and the English media feel free to follow suit.
His name is... irrelevant.
...
|
g1smd
msg:4316451 | 7:09 pm on May 23, 2011 (gmt 0) |
Whoever he is, he is an idiot. And probably an overpaid one at that.
|
engine
msg:4316779 | 9:29 am on May 24, 2011 (gmt 0) |
It's not possible to control the people in the same way that control can be placed on a news organisation. People will talk about these things down the pub, at work, or wherever (if they have any interest).
I dislike the aspect of just because you've got money you can gag the press.
Also, the fact that everyone knows who it is just makes the whole thing like a farce.
The key part of this story now is not the footballer and his indiscretions, but the result of the test of the law and new media.
|
tenerifejim
msg:4316795 | 10:09 am on May 24, 2011 (gmt 0) |
Whoever he is, he is an idiot. And probably an overpaid one at that.
|
|
Idiot - probably yes. Overpaid - one of the few who's probably worth it.
|
driller41
msg:4316835 | 12:32 pm on May 24, 2011 (gmt 0) |
The judges used a part of the Human rights act to create a privacy law without this been passed by parliament - this is wrong.
This time the footballer in question may be irrelevant but the next time may involve a genuine case the public need to know about.
|
lexipixel
msg:4318748 | 6:31 pm on May 27, 2011 (gmt 0) |
Considering it's front page news with his name, pictures and bits of the sordid details... I don't think he'll be cashing in or shutting down Twitter.
Ryan Giggs faces a public trial under world's biggest spotlight
[guardian.co.uk...]
|
|
As Tiger Woods might say; "It's par for the [inter]course" if you're a public figure.
|
Demaestro
msg:4318764 | 7:29 pm on May 27, 2011 (gmt 0) |
The news is out there. Another person fails victim to themselves.
What is amazing to me is, why do people with secrets they want kept private continue to cause a stink when things are leaked out? The Streisand Effect is well documented.
When you don't want info out there the Internet is like quicksand. The more you struggle against it the quicker you sink.
|
|
