Jump to content
Newcastle-Online

John Terry (England Captain!) has been 'playing away from home'

Ketsbaia

by Ketsbaia
in Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

Ketsbaia

Ketsbaia

Posted
Posted

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1246931/Premier-League-star-wins-gagging-order-secret-affair-team-mates-girlfriend.html?ITO=1490

 

Premier League star wins gagging order over secret affair with team-mate's girlfriend

A Premier League footballer has won a gagging order stopping the public learning about his affair with a team-mate’s girlfriend.

The so-called ‘super-injunction’ was granted by a High Court judge under human rights laws.

The married England international successfully claimed that exposing his infidelity would be a breach of his right to a ‘private and family life’.

 

So draconian is Mr Justice Tugendhat’s order that even its existence is supposed to be a secret.

This latest example of media censorship provoked fresh controversy yesterday.

A sweeping privacy law – now regularly used by sports stars to shield their lifestyles from scrutiny – has been put in place by judges without the endorsement of Parliament.

Last month, a married Premier League manager succeeded in keeping his identity out of the papers despite being spotted visiting a brothel.

Privacy guaranteed by the courts is likely to be of great financial benefit to the sportsman in the latest privacy scandal. He enjoys lucrative sponsorship deals which might be put at risk if fans were to learn of his activities.

By contrast, no privacy law binds the U.S. media and Tiger Woods has lost several highly paid deals since his serial infidelities were publicised.

Philip Davies, Tory MP for Shipley, said: ‘We are in a position where the very rich can stop any publicity they don’t like while in many cases they are perfectly happy to milk publicity when it’s positive and benefits them.’

Mr Davies, a member of the Culture, Media and Sport select committee, which is shortly to publish a report on privacy law, added: ‘The whole situation with injunctions has gone way too far.

‘A free Press should be the corner stone of a free country and a free society and I am disturbed that injunctions are being granted willynilly to the wealthy and powerful.’

The enforced silence over the footballer is doubly controversial because of the use of a ‘ super-injunction’ which forbids publication of anything about it.

Such powers were brought in to defend the public interest – such as protecting the operations of criminal justice agencies in pursuing criminals.

Last autumn, Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge gave as an example of the proper use of a super-injunction the case of the investigation of a fraud ring.

It was essential to keep an asset-freezing order against one member secret from the rest so that they did not dispose of their assets or flee.

Privacy law has largely been created by a single judge, Mr Justice Eady, who has taken charge of a number of key cases.

Last year he declared that Formula One chief Max Mosley had been deprived of his privacy when the News of the World claimed he took part in a Nazi-themed orgy with prostitutes.

The judge said that despite the fact that the participants wore uniforms, spoke German and used suggestive props, it was not a Nazi orgy, and so publishing the story was not in the public interest.

Parliament has never passed a law on privacy.

However, judges have built one on the back of Labour’s 1998 Human Rights Act, which made the European Convention on Human Rights part of British law.

Judges have made privacy rulings based on article 8 of the charter, which guarantees ‘respect for private and family life’.

They have given this precedence over article ten, which guarantees freedom of expression and ‘freedom to receive and impart information’.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Stifler

Stifler

Posted
Posted

Why do they even bother telling us when they can't say the names, infact why do they even bother telling us. I don't really give a shit if someones being playing or not, thats their public life and just because they are footballers doesn't mean that they arn't entitled to it, and why do the papaer insist on letting the secret loose? It's only going to ruin families.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thomson Mouse

Thomson Mouse

Posted
Posted

I believe in freedom of the press, but for some reason I've got no sympathy for tabloid rags who make money out of exposing people's private lives.

 

Don't need to know, don't want to know.

 

To be fair you see that many of the overpaid tossers trying to score in nightclubs, they deserve everything they get.

 

How funny would it be though if that brothel creeping manager was Phil Brown?

 

Got this throgh on popbitch today as well, which I thought was interesting

 

"Which goalkeeper left his club to the surprise

    of fans and the club, because unknown to them

    he'd discovered the team's striker was

    shagging his wife?"

 

Any guesses?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest toonlass

Guest toonlass

Posted
Posted

I believe in freedom of the press, but for some reason I've got no sympathy for tabloid rags who make money out of exposing people's private lives.

 

Don't need to know, don't want to know.

 

To be fair you see that many of the overpaid tossers trying to score in nightclubs, they deserve everything they get.

 

How funny would it be though if that brothel creeping manager was Phil Brown?

 

Got this throgh on popbitch today as well, which I thought was interesting

 

"Which goalkeeper left his club to the surprise

    of fans and the club, because unknown to them

    he'd discovered the team's striker was

    shagging his wife?"

 

Any guesses?

 

 

Oooh lets see. Hmmmmmm....

Link to post
Share on other sites
geordiedean

geordiedean

Posted
Posted

I believe in freedom of the press, but for some reason I've got no sympathy for tabloid rags who make money out of exposing people's private lives.

 

Don't need to know, don't want to know.

 

To be fair you see that many of the overpaid tossers trying to score in nightclubs, they deserve everything they get.

 

How funny would it be though if that brothel creeping manager was Phil Brown?

 

Got this throgh on popbitch today as well, which I thought was interesting

 

"Which goalkeeper left his club to the surprise

    of fans and the club, because unknown to them

    he'd discovered the team's striker was

    shagging his wife?"

 

Any guesses?

 

 

Surely shola wasnt shagging shay givens wife 

Link to post
Share on other sites
S.S.R.

S.S.R.

Posted
Posted

Shola isn't a premiership striker. Owen, otoh ...

 

I'd top myself if my a lass preferred Owen to me.

 

He's got the personality of a trouser press.

 

But how many more millions of pounds?

 

What a misogynistic comment.

 

Women value love over money.

 

 

 

 

 

:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
David Icke - Son of God

David Icke - Son of God

Posted
Posted

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jan/29/premier-league-footballer-gagging-order

 

Another controversial superinjunction was overturned today as the England captain John Terry emerged as the footballer who obtained a gagging order preventing the publication of allegations about his private life.

 

It follows the Trafigura affair in October, when an oil trading company tried to use a pre-existing superinjunction – which prevents even the existence of an injunction from being known – to stop the Guardian reporting a parliamentary question until the subsequent outcry forced Trafigura and their lawyers to back down.

 

Lawyers for Terry succeeded in applying for a high court injunction on Friday last week, having learnt that a Sunday newspaper – believed to be the News of the World – planned to write about his private life.

 

Under the terms of a superinjunction agreed by a high court judge on privacy grounds, newspaper groups were unable to reveal who had applied to stop the story coming out. But today the judge, Mr Justice Tugendhat, lifted the injunction altogether.

 

"I do not consider that an interim injunction is necessary or proportionate having regard to the level of gravity of the interference with the private life of the applicant that would occur in the event that there is a publication of the fact of the relationship, or that [the applicant] can rely in this case on the interference with the private life of anyone else," he said.

 

Although the judge did not name Terry in his order, the Guardian can reveal that he was the player who made the application.

 

And while the injunction did not cite a specific paper, the judge said that the evidence named News Group Newspapers (NGN), the publisher of the News of the World.

 

Although the terms of the injunction held until 2pm today, details about it had started to leak, first in yesterday's Daily Telegraph, which referred to an unnamed Premier League footballer, and then on Twitter.

 

The judge criticised Terry's lawyers, Schillings, for not giving newspapers notice of the action they were taking.

 

"Notice has not been given to any newspaper when it should have been and, as a result, I have not had the benefit of arguments in opposition to the application, which might have assisted me to be satisfied of the matters of which I am not satisfied," he said.

 

He rejected their argument that they had not notified anyone of the application because their client did not know of any media organisation with a "specific interest in the story".

 

"The evidence shows that NGN were intending to publish a story about [the applicant] on the Sunday ... In my judgment the interest that NGN did show in publishing a story meant that they should have been given notice."

 

He also mentioned a letter sent by the Guardian that "illustrates the importance of open justice in a case such as the present one".

 

The use of the superinjunction is likely to reignite the debate about the use of human rights legislation by public figures to prevent stories being placed into the public domain.

 

Critics say a number of rulings based on the 1998 Human Rights Act have effectively created a privacy law in the UK, which has always shied away from passing legislation to protect the rich and powerful.

 

 

In a landmark case in 2008, high court judge Mr Justice Eady ruled that the News of the World had breached the privacy of Formula One boss Max Mosley. The paper had to pay Mosley damages.

 

This week the justice secretary, Jack Straw, announced the makeup of the panel being established by his department to investigate reform of libel law, with members including Sunday Times editor John Witherow and Andrew Stephenson, a Carter-Ruck partner.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...