The player, named only as TSE, was granted a gagging order last week after arguing that news of his adulterous relationship would have “a devastating effect” on his marriage.
Mr Justice Tugendhat gave his reasons for granting the injunction at the High Court today, and took the opportunity to dismiss claims that repeated breaches of gagging orders on Twitter and other internet sites have made them futile.
On the same morning that David Cameron described privacy injunctions as “unsustainable”, the judge insisted there was still a “pressing need” for British newspapers to be prevented from naming stars who seek to cover up affairs.
The footballer, who is married with children, was granted an injunction last Thursday after he and his lover, named as ELP, discovered that the Sun newspaper was intending to expose their affair.
In a witness statement made to the court, the player said that if the Sun ran the story: “It would have a devastating effect on his marriage, on his wife and particularly their children. He states that it has become common for footballers whose private lives are exposed by the media to be booed during games and be the subject of cruel chants.”
Mr Justice Tugendhat said he was aware that the injunction had been breached on “various electronic media, including Twitter”, where the player’s name has been widely discussed, “but the fact that these publications have occurred does not mean that there should be no injunction in this case”.
The judge put himself on a collision course with the Prime Minister, who said this morning it was “not fair” if newspapers were banned from publishing the names of parties in injunctions when websites based abroad were not constrained.
Mr Cameron said: “The danger is that judgments are effectively writing a new law which is what Parliament is meant to do.”
The judge, however, expressed the opposite view, saying: “The effect of the (online) publications is that private information which was secret is no longer secret. So to that extent one purpose of the injunction has been defeated.
“But the extent of the publications, and the tone of the publications demonstrates that…there is a pressing need for the injunction to prevent harassment and unjustified intrusion into the lives of the claimants and the man’s family.”
He also hit out at the widespread belief that privacy injunctions are solely available to rich men, saying: “There is no stereotype which can be used to categorise claimants in privacy actions, and many of them are women.”
*giggles*
__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.
__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.
The fact that a judge and Cameron disagree? The fact that electronic news beat old fashion newspapers? The fact that a footballer is seing his private life exposed and his marriage destroyed? The fact that the British public is a gutter-snorting, bottom feeder piece of shit?
__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.
__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.
Well I agree that no one comes out of it looking good, but it's still news.
__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.
It's news, sure, but it's, imho, hard to disagree with the judge that there is no "public interest" angle in that story despite the obvious fact that the public is interested, prurient voyeurs that they (we?) are...
I would have a slightly different opinion if the story was about a politician selling himself on a "family values" package...
__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.
I'd have respected the judge more if he'd said that rather than "Diddums! Is the nasty fans picking on you?"
__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.
Yes, that part was weak... It doesn't invalidate the rest of the argumentation. It will have a devastating effect on the guy's marriage. Something a nobody wouldn't have to fear because no one would care for his/her indiscretions...
__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.
Footballer granted injunction to avoid 'boos and cruel chants' at Premier League game
Linear Mode
