R2OK!

mark occomore · Joined: 07 Dec 2006 Posts: 9955 Location: UK

The footballer who's at centre stage over the super injunction about his affair with Big Brother star Imogen Thomas has been named by an Liberal Democrate MP John Hemmings in House Of Commons. He used his parliamentry privilege to name the player, saying 75,000 people had already said his name on the social network site Twitter. The footballer is named as Manchester United player Ryan Giggs. His name is now out in the public domian and the media are allowed to report his name, but he still has an injunction in place.

iwarburton · Joined: 08 Dec 2006 Posts: 2133 Location: Northumberland

Even we knew who it was before the helpful Mr Hemmings revealed it. So what price the continuing injunction?

Ian.

mark occomore · Joined: 07 Dec 2006 Posts: 9955 Location: UK

ruddlescat · Joined: 16 Sep 2010 Posts: 18010 Location: Near Chester

This whole super injunction thing is quite ridiculous

Why should Mr Giggs be able to silence the media simply because he can afford the costs involved in doing so when others who have not even done anything wrong have their private lives exposed simply because they cannot afford to go to court

The whole system stinks and good on Mr Henning for putting an end to this silly episode
_________________
Are you ready for a Ruddles?

childprufe · Joined: 22 Dec 2006 Posts: 212 Location: lincolnshire

Perhaps the underlying problem will now be addressed. Most injunctions of this nature are NOT taken out by wealthy people. They are taken out by mothers of young children who are denying parental access to estranged fathers. Even though access has been granted by family courts, mothers refuse to comply and social workers take out injunctions to prevent media reports highlighting the injustice by claiming it places the children's well being at risk.
It is a widely used cynical ploy against fathers whose only wish is to allow their children to see/contact them.
_________________
Standing on Ray Moore's shoulders

ruddlescat · Joined: 16 Sep 2010 Posts: 18010 Location: Near Chester

I entirely agree childprufe

There is far too much secrecy in our Family Courts which is supposed to exist to protect children but in fact allows Social Services and others to cover up a multitude of irregularities without the aggrieved party or parties being able to talk about it or the press to report it

It's an absolute scandal in what is supposed to be a democracy and needs urgent review and I think that certainly applies regarding the injunctions to which you refer
_________________
Are you ready for a Ruddles?