Imogen Thomas Promotes Scottish Independence: Super-Injunction Scandal Spreads
THE thing about the alleged super-injunction taken out by the married footballer who had an alleged affair with Imogen Thomas, is that you have to have an idea who he is to look up his name. What you need to add credibility to the claims and allegations is a reputable source to make the claim. A Scottish newspaper has done just that. And that means the story can get onto Wikipedia and remain there. Jimmy Wales, who founded the site, tells BBC Radio 4:
“The Wikipedia community does not allow such things to come on the site unless there is a reliable source which currently there isn’t because the newspapers aren’t allowed to publish.”
He now says:
“If someone tried to force us to take the information down, we would definitely fight them.”
Meanwhile, the footballer is suing twitter for linking his name to Thomas. It is unlikely the Scottish paper has gone out on a limb on the basis of Twitter gossip. It said on its front page:
“Everyone knows that this is the footballer accused of using the courts to keep allegations of a sexual affair secret. But we weren’t supposed to tell you that.”
Above those words is a photo of a man with his eyes blacked out.
Why is the Scottish paper doing this?
It appears to many that the use of super-injunctions are the preserve of the super-wealthy to protect their privacy. There is no Privacy Law in Britain and lawyers acting on behalf of the applicants have been going to the High Court (English) to seek super-injunctions using an interpretation of the Human Rights Act 1998.
The beauty of that wheeze is the HRA also covers Scotland and Northern Ireland – which have their own judicial systems – and decisions taken by the entirely separate English High Court are binding on Courts and Judges which have had no part in the original decision. (Read on.)
Alan writes:
The Human Rights Acts 1998 also applies in Scotland and it may be an error of judgement in assuming Scottish Courts will not back their Brethren south of the Border.
Who are they to overturn a High Court judgement It is an old fashioned courtesy observed by both judiciaries. The telling thing may be the newspaper’s site has been off-line most of the day and their legal team may well be chewin’ the fat with the duty editorial team which allegedly took a flier.
My opinion, for what is it worth, is: it was stupid and a very dangerous action and if a grand old lady (the publication) is hammered for this, the journalists who did it should be looking to pastures new. There was nothing ground-breaking or of vital importance in the action.
The shooting war will start in the very near future in any case. A similar revelation proposal will have been discussed here in Anorak and, rightly, rejected. The same in every editorial conference throughout the UK.Interesting set of circumstances though. Does any potential Contempt of Court Action become: Regina V a nameless publication in the matter of CTB (redacted)
This could be a crucial and dreadful own goal.
The other side of the coin is many are being suckered in to the point of actually typing the gent’s name.
Don’t bother. It’s old news.
Indeed. But what of another view? What of the idea the Scottish paper is making a statement on Scottish independence. You English can be bound by privacy laws that help the rich, but we Scots remain free, armed with the “sword of truth and trusty shield of fair play”.
Anyhow, how is the plan going to keep CTB – the alleged footballer, as he is known in alleged legal circles – out of the media? Well, the story is only on six national front pages today! Interest is slacking…
Posted: 23rd, May 2011 | In: Reviews Comment | TrackBack | Permalink
