Insanity Rules: UK Judge Says Mass Revealing Of Ryan Giggs Name Means Injunction Is Even More Necessary

from the wtf? dept

Tue, May 24th 2011 11:13am — Mike Masnick

It is difficult to comprehend just how out of touch UK judges appear to be on the issue of these speech-blocking injunctions that the rich and famous are taking out in weak attempts to protect their actions from scrutiny. Yesterday, we noted that MP John Hemming had named Ryan Giggs as the person who had taken out an injunction concerning an affair with Imogen Thomas, confirming what pretty much all of the internet already knew. Many have assumed this meant "game over" for the injunction. And, that's an entirely reasonable and logical response.

Except, apparently, to UK judges.

Glyn Moody directs our attention to the latest ruling from the judge concerning that injunction, which is just three paragraphs of stunning inanity, arguing that the widespread knowledge of Gigg's situation is only further evidence of the need for the injunction, to prevent "harassment." Here's the entire ruling:

Mr Justice Tugendhat :

At about 1430 this afternoon Eady refused NGN's application to remove the anonymity he had granted to the claimant on 20 April. He said at para 23 ([2011] EWHC 1326 (QB)) that "It is important always to remember that the modern law of privacy is not concerned solely with secrets: it is also concerned importantly with intrusion". Intrusion in this sense includes harassment.

Very shortly afterwards a name was mentioned by Mr Hemming MP in the House of Commons in the course of a question which was interrupted by the Speaker. On that basis NGN asked me to hear a further application shortly after 5pm for the anonymity of the claimant to be removed. As the public now know, anyone who wanted to find out the name of the claimant could have learnt it many days ago. The reason is that it is has been repeated thousands of times on the internet. NGN now want to join in.

It is obvious that if the purpose of this injunction were to preserve a secret, it would have failed in its purpose. But in so far as its purpose is to prevent intrusion or harassment, it has not failed. The fact that tens of thousands of people have named the claimant on the internet confirms that the claimant and his family need protection from intrusion into their private and family life. The fact that a question has been asked in Parliament seems to me to increase, and not to diminish the strength of his case that he and his family need that protection. The order has not protected the claimant and his family from taunting on the internet. It is still effective to protect them from taunting and other intrusion and harassment in the print media.

Yes, read this again: "The fact that tens of thousands of people have named the claimant on the internet confirms that the claimant and his family need protection from intrusion into their private and family life. The fact that a question has been asked in Parliament seems to me to increase, and not to diminish the strength of his case that he and his family need that protection." There seems to be a ridiculous level of cognitive dissonance from "Mr Justice Tugendhat" who doesn't seem to recognize that the only reason why Giggs has been named so widely is because of the ridiculous injunction. If such an injunction had never been issued, then no such "harassment" would have occurred. And, is it really "harassment" to have someone accurate report something you did?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: free speech, injunction, ryan giggs, uk

60 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Pickle Monger (profile), 24 May 2011 @ 10:36am

Unless "Mr Justice Tugendhat" is proposing the United Kingdom recolonise the rest of the world, I don't see how this could be "practicable."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcel de Jong (profile), 24 May 2011 @ 11:06am

what I think what we need
is judges with more sense than this one.

This judge fights quite a Don Quixotic fight against a moronic injunction.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2011 @ 11:26am

Ryan Giggs gets his panties in a bunch because he's done something the news reporters feel is juicy gossip. They report and he goes on a spend rampage with the courts to shush it up. Must be nice to have money to buy the court's agreement.

BTW, I'm a US citizen and have a right to publicly express my opinion. So how is the UK courts going to deal with that one?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 24 May 2011 @ 11:29am

Flames meet fan ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2011 @ 11:34am

The last sentance there in paragraph #3 is the judge's real argument. "OK, tens of thousands of people all over the world are broadcasting this guy's infidelity, but at least the newspapers haven't mentioned it!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2011 @ 11:37am

More insanity here.

"Twitter cannot be allowed to operate outside the law"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/24/twitter-ryan-giggs-social-media

Read it and weep. God, we're so out of touch, it's amazing that a UK resident had the foresight to come up with the WWW in the first place. I despair of my country.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, aka Is, 24 May 2011 @ 11:37am

I am changing my name to Is, moving to the UK, and filing a superinjunction.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Donnicton, 24 May 2011 @ 11:37am

Re:
I still can't get past the fact that his last name is almost an anagram of Ted Nugent.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Some Other Guy (profile), 24 May 2011 @ 11:39am

In the UK today...
... I noticed that at least half of the newspapers seemed to be naming a certain person who wished to remain anonymous on their front covers.

Something amiss there?

(No naming He Who Shall Not Be Named for me, 'cos as a resident of the UK, I don't want the privacy police on my case, national news getting away with it or not)
:)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Some Other Guy (profile), 24 May 2011 @ 11:40am

Re:
Wasn't he resident in Switzerland or something at the time? (CERN and all that)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
lord binky, 24 May 2011 @ 11:45am

Whew... without that injunction a certain somebody may have had to deal with other people's opinions of his poor choices. I mean really, who wants to deal with social sanctions and punishment when you break laws and go against social norms. That kinda stuff is for smucks that can't pay to shut people up, amiright?! *high five*
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josef Anvil (profile), 24 May 2011 @ 11:45am

someone point the judge to Google
The judge should research: Streisand Effect.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Simon, 24 May 2011 @ 11:47am

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/may/24/financier-sister-in-law-injunction-breach
[ link to this | view in thread ]
el_segfaulto (profile), 24 May 2011 @ 11:47am

Re:
With a dusting of thermite for good measure
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2011 @ 11:56am

Re: Re:
Gore lived in Switzerland?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 24 May 2011 @ 11:59am

Harassment
This Giggs guy isn't being harassed due to him possibly having an affair (We don't know that it was him), he's now being harassed due to him filing a superinjunction against saying the name of the person who had the affair. Yep, that's so much better.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 24 May 2011 @ 12:00pm

Re:
Secretly jailed?

A wealthy British financier is seeking to have his sister-in-law secretly jailed in a libel case, in the latest escalation of the controversy over superinjunctions and the internet, the Guardian can disclose.

Brits, time to buck up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Duke (profile), 24 May 2011 @ 12:01pm

I do wish people would try looking at the facts...
Why is it that many people fail to get that the UK (and much of Europe) has never really cared about freedom of speech in the same way the US has. Just because you hold it so highly, doesn't mean the rest of us should.

As for this ruling, the key part is the end:

The order has not protected the claimant and his family from taunting on the internet. It is still effective to protect them from taunting and other intrusion and harassment in the print media.

Combine that with what Lord Neuberger said on Friday:

At the moment the law seems to be that even if the information which is the subject matter of the injunction is on the web, or may go on the web, that is by no means the same degree of intrusion under privacy as the story being emblazoned on the front page of a national newspaper, which people trust more and has far greater circulation than those bloggers and tweeters
and you can kind of see where they are coming from. Yes, they are aware that once something is on the Internet it will spread, and the more you try to remove it, the more it will spread. However, they also know that, for now, at least, the biggest threat comes from the newspapers. A few thousand people may follow the stuff on Twitter (mainly those who would find out some way or another anyway), but the front page of the tabloids will get millions of people talking about it.

As for the "suing Twitter" stuff, what the judges are saying isn't that Twitter must follow the UK law (and the Guardian comment piece linked above is written by someone who doesn't have a clue; two factual errors in the caption of the image alone), but that UK users of Twitter must follow UK law, and in particular, when a Court tells newspapers not to do something, they shouldn't just go on Twitter and do it there instead. Since when did it become acceptable to break basic principles of criminal law (like not interfering with ongoing cases) simply because you can get away with it technologically?

As a final point, it is worth highlighting what Eady J said in his judgment in this case yesterday:

Parliament may at some stage wish to change the law and make specific provision in the light of these developments, but in the meantime the courts are obliged to apply the law as it currently stands. .... Should the court buckle every time one of its orders meets widespread disobedience or defiance? In a democratic society, if a law is deemed to be unenforceable or unpopular, it is for the legislature to make such changes as it decides are appropriate.

The only insanity in this situation is coming from the press (who are downright lying about stuff) and politicians, openly breaking the law (which they can do) and their own rules, more interested in scoring points than debating a real issue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Some Other Guy (profile), 24 May 2011 @ 12:07pm

Re: Re: Re:
In the name of clarity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Berners-Lee

WWW, not Internet :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Duke (profile), 24 May 2011 @ 12:09pm

Re: Re:
Key words are "seeking to have". Just because claims are being filed, doesn't mean they will succeed.

The ZAM case isn't a super-injunction (using the legal definition) as, for starters, there is a public judgment.

To be blunt, if she is breaking a court order, of course she is liable to go to prison. Secondly, if she is blackmailing him, she could go to jail for that as well. In either case, though, I imagine a judge would be very unlikely to grant anonymity to someone they're locking up.

Having said all that, as unwilling as I am to criticise UK judges (given the unjustified attacks they're getting from the press and world in general, for simply applying Parliament's orders) I do think Tugendhat J may have gone too far in the ZAM case.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2011 @ 12:11pm

Actually I'm pretty sure this is "evidence" that people take great pleasure in spiting so-called Justice that is bought by the rich and powerful and that defies all common sense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2011 @ 12:12pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not trying to be a pain, but what's the difference? The Internet is the connected computers and The Web is the documents they exchange?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
wgg, 24 May 2011 @ 12:12pm

Re: someone point the judge to Google
I believe that "Streisand Effect" is now know in the UK as "Giggs Effect"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2011 @ 12:15pm

Re: In the UK today...
I'm guessing that it's not that they can't say his name, but that they can't say he had an affair with this Imogen girl. I guess they could talk about other ways that he could be related to this ever-anonymous man who did something with someone, none of which we can talk about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Some Other Guy (profile), 24 May 2011 @ 12:18pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Pretty much. Internet=hardware, Web=software.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2011 @ 12:19pm

Re: I do wish people would try looking at the facts...
In a democratic society, if a law is deemed to be unenforceable or unpopular, it is for the legislature to make such changes as it decides are appropriate.

I thought it was specifically the couts' place to determine unenforcability, as a check on the Legislature and Executive Branch.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Some Other Guy (profile), 24 May 2011 @ 12:20pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Although, I think stuff like IP and other low-level protocols are internetty, rather than webby, despite being software...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Some Other Guy (profile), 24 May 2011 @ 12:22pm

Re: Re: In the UK today...
I wouldn't like to guess precisely what it is that they aren't allowed to say, since if I guessed right, as I understand it, there might be a secret document that I'm not allowed to know about which I'd be violating the orders of....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Duke (profile), 24 May 2011 @ 12:28pm

Re: Re: I do wish people would try looking at the facts...
I thought it was specifically the couts' place to determine unenforcability, as a check on the Legislature and Executive Branch.

To an extent, but it's more that the Court should say be telling Parliament to change the law when it doesn't work - and also this is a lowly High Court judge; he really shouldn't be messing with the law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NullOp, 24 May 2011 @ 12:32pm

Judge
Wait, a judge is out of touch......NOOOOOOOOO
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Peet McKimmie (profile), 24 May 2011 @ 12:40pm

Re: In the UK today...
I'm in the UK, and I can name Ryan Giggs freely, because I am in Scotland. The arrogant English court system didn't realise that their injunction held no force here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 24 May 2011 @ 12:43pm

Re: Re: Re: I do wish people would try looking at the facts...
To an extent, but it's more that the Court should say be telling Parliament to change the law when it doesn't work - and also this is a lowly High Court judge; he really shouldn't be messing with the law.

So... how's it working out?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
sehlat (profile), 24 May 2011 @ 12:47pm

Re: I do wish people would try looking at the facts...
Actually, the insanity seems to be that the public at large can do things the newspapers are forbidden to do.

Translation of Governmentese: All your pages are belong to us.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Duke (profile), 24 May 2011 @ 12:47pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: I do wish people would try looking at the facts...
Until Monday evening's judgment, it's working out great - we have a fairly sensible and functional privacy law, it's just being attacked (using classic FUD techniques and some outright lies) by the press, who keep losing cases.

[Remember, this is the same press who were consistently breaking the law on phone-tapping for 10 years and are trying to deflect attention from that.]

Monday evening's judgment (the one this refers to) goes a little too far, perhaps, in finally splitting off misuse of private information from breach of confidence, but it still works quite well.

What the problem is, is that we have politicians who aren't willing to put in place stronger rules against the tabloid press (because they rely on them for coverage). The press are holding Parliament to ransom, so Parliament can't act; leaving the Courts stuck doing the dirty work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 24 May 2011 @ 12:59pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Internet=All protocols that travel over the hardware connecting the world (HTTP, FTP, P2P, IM, ext).

Web=short for World Wide Web, the sites you view over the HTTP and HTTPS protocols.

Infrastructure=hardware.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2011 @ 1:10pm

Ryan Giggs? Biggest whore on 5th avenue I'm told...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2011 @ 1:16pm

Re:
Good article on why we shouldn't rely on private for-profit companies for our freedoms.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Groove Tiger (profile), 24 May 2011 @ 1:43pm

This judge clearly thinks the injunction is not super enough. It's only Aquaman or Hawkgirl-level super, which is kinda lame, and he wants it to be more super. A super-duper injunction, on the power levels of Captain Marvel or the Silver Surfer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Some Other Guy (profile), 24 May 2011 @ 2:46pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
OK, that's better than mine.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 24 May 2011 @ 3:19pm

Re: I do wish people would try looking at the facts...
Why is it that many people fail to get that the UK (and much of Europe) has never really cared about freedom of speech in the same way the US has. Just because you hold it so highly, doesn't mean the rest of us should.

It would appear, from the outpouring on the internet, that you severely underestimate the number of people in the UK who do care about freedom of speech.

And, while you may believe my position is US-centric, it is not. It is free speech centric. I believe that's a key value that *should* be global. That you may choose to censor yourself, is no excuse for censoring others.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
hmm (profile), 24 May 2011 @ 4:05pm

i know how to destroy these injunctions
All you need to do is refuse to name the person but SIMULTANEOUSLY state that "the man with the injunction is guilty of".... " and is using the injunction to cover it up".

the only way to DENY the claims is to go public....failure to do so looks like guilt.....and when your name DOES come out, ppl will remember the random accusation as being true.....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
hmm (profile), 24 May 2011 @ 4:20pm

just print
if the papers simply ran "unknown celebrity..sorry we can't tell you his name...just committed xxxsomething nastyxxx....."
the only things he can do is either say "hey don't libel me"....and admit hes the anonymous figure OR shut the hell up and take the false accusation!

Its also nice to see someone famous basically obliterate their ENTIRE career in one sentence by saying that its better that 75,000 people should go to jail and have their lives ruined, than find out he stuck his winky into someone elses hoohaa that wasn't his wife's hoohaa.......
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 24 May 2011 @ 4:29pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I do wish people would try looking at the facts...
What the problem is, is that we have politicians who aren't willing to put in place stronger rules against the tabloid press...

So, people on Twitter are the 'tabloid press?' Arguable, but not ultimately a winning argument.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Andrew F (profile), 24 May 2011 @ 4:33pm

Re:
"Bla bla bla Ryan Giggs bla bla bla"
"You can't say that!"
"Who are you?"
"I'M THE GODDAMN BATMAN."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2011 @ 8:03pm

Am I the only one who imagines an older man in a black judges robe and powdered wig with his head firmly inserted in his ass while yelling LALALALALALALALALALA THERE IS NO INTERNET?

I probably am, oh well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mr Big Content, 24 May 2011 @ 10:22pm

Logic Rules OK!
And they said I was crazy ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 24 May 2011 @ 11:24pm

Re: Re: I do wish people would try looking at the facts...
WE understand the ideal of freedom of speech. However, most of the legislatures that make up Europe do not, mostly due to misinformation from such "hallowed" publications as The Sun and The Daily Mail, which are essentially Fox Lite.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
G Thompson (profile), 25 May 2011 @ 12:27am

Re: Re: In the UK today...
Why am I now imagining a whole bunch of black robed, wig wearing London based Beaks brandishing Black puddings and yelling "Ecky Thump" at Scottish papers? ;)

And being Australian I don't really give a flying f**k who Ryan Griggs is or who he has shagged, but these so called super injunctions make for super hilarity and like most Aussies I will give the royal one fingered salute to most English Toffs and speak about any idiot I want
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mike allen (profile), 25 May 2011 @ 12:33am

Re:
ha ha ha ha newspapers not mentioned it nooo only on the front page of every national daily yesterday with pictures of Giggs himself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mike allen (profile), 25 May 2011 @ 12:49am

Re: Re: In the UK today...
Im in England and il name Ryan Giggs I will not be told by any Judge what to say or not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
G Thompson (profile), 25 May 2011 @ 12:56am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I do wish people would try looking at the facts...
Maybe this situation will generate enough interest by the public and parliament to have the Privacy laws changed, hopefully for the better, to deal with the problems that worldwide social interactivity has on jurisdictional problems.

OR just make a contra mundum order. Simple! ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Griff (profile), 25 May 2011 @ 1:13am

Harassment
The big difference between his name being out on twitter and the mainstream press being allowed to report it is that twitter doesn't besiege your house with camera trucks and people trying to take pictures of all your family as they attempt to walk down the street.
That is the "harassment" which is being referred to, not the idea of papers reporting it.

Giggs knows we all know it is him.
If this had all come out with no superinjunction it would still have been big enough news to get his family pestered by the press. (Though this has undoubtedly made it worse).

I'd have preferred that the injunction simply addressed the real situation and sought to ban media organisations from within 100 yards of his family (who are the victims). Which is all it has really been achieving of late.

On another point, even if twitter was UK based, I don't see how you can sue someone for tweeting this.
If they don't know it is true for sure then they are guessing/speculating, and that can't be the same as wilfully revealing details. If it's legally secret, how am I supposed to know who it is ? How can I know when I retweet if I am breaking the injunction or not ? A law that I cannot legally find out whether I am breaking, is surely a stupid law.
Maybe it comes down to tweeter zero, the first person to tweet it. Yet if they are not in a priveleged position to know the info behind the injunction, they are just speculating too.

Put another way, if I tweet the identity of all the top 50 footballers, guessing it must be one of them, am I guilty of 49 libels and 1 injuction breaking? And if I have the right to know the charges against me, doesn't someone have to break the law to tell me what I did wrong ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kurto (profile), 25 May 2011 @ 1:58am

Why?
UK judges routinely get "FAIL" for their understanding of internet and technology, so no surprises there. The issue has become a massive joke over here in England.

The thing I can't get my head around is why anyone who has slept with Imogen Thomas would want to cover it up, rather than broadcast it to the world!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 25 May 2011 @ 6:26am

Re: Re:
In the words of paris hilton "Thats Hot!" ... did I just quote her? what is the world coming to?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2011 @ 6:39am

Sooo.... The superinjunction is there to stop the newspapers putting out the story. Which leaves the asshole paparazzi (the real annoyance and target of the law) without a market for their photos. That's kinda roundabout way to do it. Doesn't really stop the 1 Newspaper from printing a front page photo and saying "Look! We got photos of Giggs!" and then another newspaper printing "Unknown footballer put out a superinjunction for ____." Then when two people sit next to each other ready each different paper... someone might make the connection....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2011 @ 7:18am

Re: Re: I do wish people would try looking at the facts...
If you were Ryan Giggs' Wife or Children right now you definitely would not mind a little bit of censorship right now!

To have 100's of journalist's camped outside waiting for you is definitely harrassment.

This is what the injunctions were trying to prevent....in a way (a very poor way). By preventing the papers from breaking/reporting the story it also prevented them from camping outside the house of the family as this would give the game away (even if it was already out on Twitter, etc).

While I like the ideal of free speech I also see the need to limit the press' intrusion into peoples lives to some extent. I.e they can write as much as they want and publish what they want but they must not camp outside said persons house or follow them everywhere they go!

It would appear, from the outpouring on the internet, that you severely underestimate the number of people in the UK who do care about freedom of speech.

Mike people like to spread gossip, not everyone that spread the news on the internet was championing free speech (some probably were)

The good thing about this whole situation is it might lead to the reform of some of these laws to make them more in line with reality and technology.

The bad thing that may happen (chilling even) is that MP's could lose (or find limited) their right to parlimentary protection because of the MP revealing gigg's name.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Niall (profile), 25 May 2011 @ 9:36am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I do wish people would try looking at the facts...
No, we have ridiculous laws, where people come for libel tourism ("Someone somewhere in Britain MAY have seen you calling me a rude name on your obscure blog about undead orchids grown by upside-down chimp clowns so I'll do you for quadrillions of pounds of damages!").

Our superinjunctions are just as bad. A financier wants a secret jailing of a family member for DARING to mention anything about him? So it's one law for the rich ("Awwww I'll cry [to a lawyer] if someone says a bad word about me or takes a less-than-flattering photo") and one law for the poor (who can't afford these things and can get reported on by the newspapers any time they like)? Bah humbug.

The law is a badly applied turkey, and needs to join this century and catch up with technology - and social attitudes. No-one cares nowadays that someone is born to an unwed mother, or that said mother is unwed - but they do care when someone rich/famous/should-be-obscure-but-is-Russell-Brand makes a total arse of themselves, especially if they are a hypocrite about it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Niall (profile), 25 May 2011 @ 9:39am

Re: Re: Re: I do wish people would try looking at the facts...
Stopping the newspapers from 'discussing' the issue is miles away from getting protection from media harrassment.

If you don't want family harrassed, get an appropriate injunction. Properly evidenced.

If you don't want your family embarrassed, keep it in your trousers, and don't appear to be using your loadsa money to shut up anyone whistleblowing on you.

I feel extremely sorry for his wife and kids, but he's the one who did the dirty (and not just once), and he's the one that has paraded them in public making something of his 'family' credentials. I just hope his wife gets a good lawyer (she should maybe ask Maria Shriver?). Maybe she can sue him for embarassment/harrassment herself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
hmm (profile), 25 May 2011 @ 11:15am

There is no way that parliamentary privilege is EVER going away...for one thing you'd need to convince parliament to give up the power and cancel legislation that allows it...which it's not going to do even if you offered every single MP a go on Imogen Thomas.....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
hmm (profile), 25 May 2011 @ 11:17am

however
What I say is...we all have a whip-round and take out an injunction protecting the note middle-C from criticism and harassment (I define harassment of a musical note as being included in any song by Miley Cyrus)
This would put the RIAA and other scum out of business....
[ link to this | view in thread ]