Gagging Orders, Superinjunctions & Hyperinjunctions are increasingly being used by UK powerful corporations and wealthy individuals to stop the media from publishing information.

Should it be be used by wealthy individuals (in our case PL players) to stop the media from publishing or block information especially of intimate details of their private lives? What about making it accessible for those (the other party viz Imogen Thomas) who can't afford it.


If hyperinjunction was granted we would never have known about Sir Fred Goodwin at all.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/8523323...-colleague.html

Now there's another superinjunction purportedly obtained by another PL player & thats where we are at..

This post has been edited by CityBluePrint: May 24 2011, 04:04 AM

In the bigger scheme of things, I don't agree to it. I can understand the need to 'protect' role models, especially when millions of young impressionable kids look up to them but having given it some thought, it only serves to make the rich and famous feel invincible in that they could potentially get away with murder (just as expression for those of you who take things literally).

Sure, the paparazzi/media can be invasive because gossip sells. However it's a price you have to pay for being rich and famous. It comes with the job. You don't get paid millions and have it easy all the time. You have a social responsibility.

Especially important if your livelihood comes from being well known or having a certain reputation. If you earn money from fame or reputation, then it's only fair that you be responsible in keeping those advantages present, just as it is for normal workers who maintain the skills that make them employable.

Also the whole issue of press freedom not being arbitrarily limited for the benefit of the few.

P.S. By the way, I don't think this is really an issue for Football Lounge.

This post has been edited by minority: May 24 2011, 06:58 PM

Exactly!
A case in point for footballer John Terry, having been voted 'Dad of the Year' & garnered subsequent endorsements as a result or byproduct or reinforcement of the award to his football prowess.

Do you think he will continue maintaining the rewards if not for his 'superinjunction imbroglio'?

---

Added on May 25, 2011, 5:53 amIMO he would not have been dropped as England's Captain if there was no superinjunction advised by his enablers!

This post has been edited by CityBluePrint: May 25 2011, 05:53 AM

Let's face fact. While having cameras chasing them over all the time, football players too are human. Heck I'll just say it, they are men as well. To an extent, we are at the point of just thoughtfully naughty. Now even if you have a girlfriend or heck, wife, would you have checked out another girl when you see a pretty one pass you? It's the same with them. It is just that these players , multimillionaire, are able to access into a deeper "dirty" stat. Plus they are Westerners, altough trying hard to not stereotypee, they have a totally different culture than us Asians. The divorce rate is high, affairs are common sight. Now they know that they have a reputation to keep. They lay it low but some are just exposed.

From what I see, they are just football players. They're not celebrities like of actors and singers. Their life on the media is suppose to revolve around football , thus I don't see the need to be exposing their "hot gossips" like celebrities. They might have received a few offers for advertising, but the main focus is still their football talent.

The media has no fullstop in their broadcast. It constantly find something fresh for us audience to keep us anticipating, and it so happens that football player's private life has been on hit.

if they are cheats, then their image should transpired as such. i dont have any problem with ryan giggs cheating. none any of my business really. i still know that he is a bloody good footballer... but i do have problem cheats earning money true clean image. sponsorhip. image rights. i a think a portion of his bargaining power for a new playing contract are based on image as well...

i am sure Man U fans still adores Ryan giggs eventhough he is a cheat. So whats so hard to come clean about it? thats part and parcel of "doing" it... so if you cannot accept the drawback of "doing" it.. then..dont "do" it..

the notion that you can runaway with everything if you have, or involve, the right amount of money is very wrong....

This post has been edited by aressandro10: May 25 2011, 01:43 PM

I am sure this is an appropriate time, and for the latest update, to bring this up.


There is no basis other than 'problem cheats earning money true clean image. sponsorhip. image rights. '

Absolutely right on. Why superinjunction should not be granted.




Ryan Giggs 'accepts Imogen Thomas not a blackmailer'


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16193718



"He did this to me because he would get away with it"

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/...-all-I-had.html


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

That 'the notion that you can runaway with everything if you have, or involve, the right amount of money is very wrong' .

Very Apt & Profound Post by aressandro10


It begs the question then if Giggs et al were to do it (cheating even to one's family) of the court whats the chances of them doing it in court or vice versa?