Imogen Thomas: Blackmailer Or Not?
THIS writer has been warned away from a number of stories thanks to the ubiquitous super injunction. Kinda irritating when you meet the celebrity in question and have to stand there with a big shit-eating grin on your face, coupled with whitened knuckles of frustration.
One super injunction that seems to have a whole bunch of names attached to it regardless is the one involving Imogen Thomas, who you may remember as being ‘Her Off Big Brother 7 Who Had The World’s Most Listless Sex Tape Leaked’.
Now, she’s alleged to have had it off with a footballer (and yes, you can easily find out who that might be, elsewhere online – we couldn’t afford the lawyers fees by mentioning them… besides, we’re saving up for various junkets aren’t we?).
In fact, Thomas went on This Morning to talk about how unfair the whole thing is. Now, she’s desperate to clear her name after she complained about press intrusion and, more seriously, there are accusations of blackmail.
She says:
“I’ve never asked for anything the whole time I was with him. I had no intention of going to the papers. I’ve never fought the injunction. Simply because I wanted to protect him and his family.”
“I know what I did was wrong and I’ve put my hands up… why should I be taking all this flack and him get away with everything basically.”
However, documents seen by HolyMoly suggest otherwise. The court papers (which you can see here) suggest that they believe Imogen decided to sell her story to various newspapers… however, she offered to buy the footballer in question the chance to buy her silence.
The footballer’s lawyers argue that he only met Thomas on three occasions (not indulging in a 6 month affair as claimed) and that the reality drop-out sent several texts “leading him to believe she was planning on selling her story – she then said she “needed” £50,000.”
On meeting her in a hotel, the footballer “may well have been set up” so that photographs could be taken of them leaving together. The price went up at this point, to £100,000.
The QC writing the document says
“The evidence before the court at that point, therefore, appeared strongly to suggest that the Claimant was being blackmailed”
“The evidence before the court at that stage, therefore, appeared to indicate, rightly or wrongly, that Ms Thomas had arranged for photographs to be taken, having already agreed a payment or payments from the newspaper. Despite that, she was still requesting £100,000 from the Claimant… there was ample reason not to trust Ms Thomas… it seems probable that she had agreed at some point to contribute to the story in The Sun that was published in its issue for 14 April. It is thus ironic that Ms Thomas has subsequently complained of the court’s supposed unfairness in according anonymity to the Claimant but not to her.”
So, what do you think the whole story is here?
Posted: 17th, May 2011 | In: Celebrities Comment (1) | TrackBack | Permalink
