Not trolling the mods, John Hemming MP has just used parliamentary privilege to name the footballer involved in the injunction debacle, saying 75,000 twitter posts had named him. The BBC and others have taken legal advice and are now reporting on what John Hemming has said, which allows them to report and name the footballer without (it appears) breaking the injunction.

It’s here in the telegraph..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/twitter/8531175/Ryan-Giggs-named-as-Premier-League-footballer-in-Twitter-injunction-row.html

Maybe Mark could start an ‘official’ name the footballer thread so everyone can stop skirtign aroudn the issue?

although maybe you can only name him if reporting what was said in parliament?

WHO CARES…………..

Just an over paid bloke who kicks a ball for money,instead of geting a job in a care home or hospital, actually helping people.

He’s named on the BBC news website too.
Edit: Oops didn’t read the OP properly. 🙄

parliamentary privilege isnt necessarily the key that unlocks the door

The report also says that media reports of comments made in parliament which set out to contravene injunctions may be in contempt of court. Reports of statements in the Commons and Lords are protected by parliamentary privilege only if they are published “in good faith and without malice”.

Addressing the media at the royal courts of justice in central London, the lord chief justice: “It is, of course, wonderful for you if a member of parliament stands up in parliament and says something which in effect means an order of the court on anonymity is breached.

“But you do need to think whether it’s a good idea for our lawmakers to be flouting a court order just because they disagree with a court order or they disagree with the privacy law created by parliament.”

project – I agree – my only interest has been in the process of his naming rather than what he was alledged ot have done.

If he’d just let the tabloids get on with reporting I’d probably have never heard about it.

project I’m not interested in football or footballers, I am interested in the privacy vs democracy/free speech debate, and how the UK legislature is being left behind by technology. Most stories are salacious but journos use the Trafigura example of a super injunction (not just a basic injunction which everyone seems to call a super injunction) being used for immoral ends to take the moral high ground.

what stoner said this is not some great day for democaracy when a sitting MP ignores the law of the land that they helped pass
I seem to recall when they were abity free with their intepretation of expenses laws thatr we got a bit cross with them
An Mp has chosen to gnore the law so someone selling her sex story for money can do so. What a fine and noble stance they have taken to uphold News international right to publish whatever they want about whomever whenever

Earlier the High Court again ruled that the injunction should not be lifted.

Parliamentary privilege protects MPs and peers from prosecution for statements made in the House of Commons or House of Lords.

Addressing MPs, Mr Hemming said: “Mr Speaker, with about 75,000 people having named Ryan Giggs it is obviously impracticable to imprison them all.”
so there you go enough of you break the law that MP will ignore the High court for your right to ignore the law 🙄
Of all the issues to make aprincipled stand over for a lib dem

perhaps anyone looking to indulge in extra marital affairs might in future think of the hurt, intrusion and betrayel that thier families may face once there deciept is revealed. On the other hand… if you earn 100k a week and have an incredibly attractive wife, happy kids and all the material things you could possibly want and have lived every young lads dream then of course a relationship with an attention seeking publicity savvy minger has too be high on the agenda

An Mp has chosen to gnore the law so someone selling her sex story for money can do so. What a fine and noble stance they have taken to uphold News international right to publish whatever they want about whomever whenever

Actually, this way I imagine she’ll get less money. It would only really be a big payout if it was a total exclusive. As the story is splashed everywhere, I can’t see that The Sun will now sell a load of additional copies.

if you earn 100k a week and have an incredibly attractive wife, happy kids and all the material things you could possibly want and have lived every young lads dream then of course a relationship with an attention seeking publicity savvy minger has too be high on the agenda

The man’s an idiot. And instead of going down in history as an absolute legend, he’ll now always be remembered as “that idiot who had a fling with what’s-her-name”. Just imagine how appalling it must be for his wife and kids.

It’s about time someone introduced an anti-misspelling injunction on here.

I demand the right to read posts without it doing my head as I try to decipher the spellings.

EDIT : Thanks JY for a least making a half-arsed attempt to correct some of your spellings.

So lowlife 1 pays for sex with lowlife 2.

Lowlife 2 wants to name lowlife 1 so that she can make a quick buck out of it.

Lowlife 1 takes out an injunction on lowlife 2, thus also depriving the Daily Wail from selling some newspapers.

Lowlife 3 outs him in the house of commons.

I’m bored already. It’s only news if people pay attention or buy books written by lowlifes. Shame about the lowlife we voted in office though.

thanks ernie got a bit ranty and loose there

Mr Cameron told ITV1’s Daybreak banning newspapers from naming such stars while the information was widely available on the internet was both “unsustainable” and “unfair”.

so there you go want to publish anything then leak it to the web and circumvent the laws of the land.
Hurray for a free media never absuing their power and upholding our rights

So if mentioning the name of an overpaid prima donna was worth a week ban, surely mentioning the name of a publicity hungry MP is worth at least 2.

Or do I have to take out a super injunction banning the use of said MP’s name?

WHO CARES…………..

Just an over paid bloke who kicks a ball for money,instead of geting a job in a care home or hospital, actually helping people.
that’s why the news parers totally
**** up his life is such a good thing. I hope he ends up a pennlyless drunk.

I demand to be injuncted now! Injunct me this instance!

Basically if he cared about his Family he would have kept it zipped up.

End of thread I reckon.

Junkyard – Member

what stoner said this is not some great day for democaracy when a sitting MP ignores the law of the land that they helped pass

Testify brother! There’s a process for MPs to do something about laws they don’t like, it’s called “parliament”

what stoner said this is not some great day for democaracy when a sitting MP ignores the law of the land that they helped pass

But the law concerned has never been debated by the Government or the higher House and passed into law. It’s been introduced entirely by judges who are not elected, based on their interpretation of one part of the Human Rights Act, while totally ignoring the other part of the same Act that allows for freedom of opinion and speech. Those same unelected judges are also threatening Parliament itself with the removal of Parliamentary Privilege. Any law concerning freedom of speech and comment need to be debated fully in open parliament and voted on democratically, which isn’t happening now. Judges must not be allowed to circumvent the democratic process, and hopefully this whole fiasco will result in them being brought under control. It’s slightly ironic that many in government are themselves lawyers.

I have some sympathy with the judges who claim they are simply interpreting the law that parliament has already passed, not inventing new law. It was parliament that incorporated the human rights act, it is the jduges that have to administer it as it has been written into law by parliament.

The gap in my understanding is that if the HRA is in principal a european law, how do other european legsilations interperet it withotu all this mess? And who got us to this mess, the parliamentary act or the english legal infrastructure?

based on their interpretation of one part of the Human Rights Act, while totally ignoring the other part of the same Act that allows for freedom of opinion and speech.

That is what happens in a democracy one body sets the law another interpret the law. You divide the power so to have a check and balance. Clearly parliament passed this law so that is just incorrect

Those same unelected judges are also threatening Parliament itself with the removal of Parliamentary Privilege.

Judges do not set the law so they cannot remove it -see the point above. He completely upheld the right of parliament to debate whatever it wanted and what the judge said was

But you do need to think, do you not, whether it’s a very good idea for our law makers to be flouting a court order just because they disagree with a court order, or for that matter, because they disagree with the law of privacy which Parliament has created.

It seems a reasonable point tbh.

Any law concerning freedom of speech and comment need to be debated fully in open parliament and voted on democratically, which isn’t happening now.

Dont disagree it requires a debate but it did not occur as you describe. I t is reasonable to say the full implications were not considered hence the need for debate. Parliament could not pass a law that circumvents the human rights act anyway though they could repeal that act first. See votes for prisoners for example.

Judges must not be allowed to circumvent the democratic process, and hopefully this whole fiasco will result in them being brought under control.

Firstly judges and the courts and the rule of law are part of the democratic process see above. You prefer judges under the control of whom exactly to uphold democracy? Seems a judiciary controlled by politicians [ or worse media owners] would be far less democratic than what we currently have.
You can support the fredom of every individual to know who slept with who and how if you wish. You can see it as some sort of noble campaign to uphold free speech – not surprising the media who report this want us all to see it in a simple black and white scenario. In all honesty this is not an example where i feel like my inalienable human rights and right to free speech has been massively curtailed by stopping someone selling her sex story for cash.
I think the hyperbole above is exactly what the media wants. News International have been charged twice this week for breaking the law in phone tapping and contempt of court. They never once argues the case was in the public interest just that it was public knowledge.

Noite the title but actually read the article

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8525815/Top-judge-attacks-MPs-who-reveal-injunctions.html

Stoner I think most have privacy laws that clarify the issue and dont contravene the act
Even the USA has a privacy law despite the first amendment

So are we allowed to say Ryan Giggs yet?

Yep but don’t say it 5 times in a mirror or he’ll appear and shag your girlfriend.

put on the plus side he will gag her 😉

actually I don’t think Imogen Thomas is the gold digger some are making her out to be. The report I heard went along the lines of:

newspaper threatens to expose Giggs / Thomas affair
Thomas informs Giggs
Giggs applies for and gets superinjunction banning us from saying Ryan Giggs
Newspaper runs story about Thomas and unnamed prem footballer instead (because she couldn’t / didn’t get a similar superinjunction)
Everyone assumed it was Thomas kiss and telling
She now wants to put her side across (that she didn’t blab / isn’t blackmailing him) but can’t because of the threat of legal action

Admittedly, it was Max Clifford who was reported for most of that…..