I think its a case of Giggs could afford one but how could Imogen?..

My view is SI's should only be used to protect someone from physical harm, if the player claims its to protect his family or livelyhood it should'nt stand..he should have protected those by not playing away....

 Go the Editor of the Sunday Herald!  

from the Guardian website:

The editor said he had not been approached by the footballer's lawyers, adding that as the newspaper was not publishing the story online - and as no copies were distributed in England - the injunction did not apply.

"His lawyers would need to have a separate injunction granted by a Scottish court, which they could have done. It is not beyond people to do that, but they didn't do it."

Personally I don't give a toss about either Imogen or her footballer, what does concern me is the precedent being set, and how it can be manipulated in the future for much more nefarious purposes. I may even buy it tomorrow for the very first time.

I agree with the privacy laws Stonksy ...the trashy, gossipy, celeb' driven press have gone waaaay too far for way too long imo and I really can't be doing with all of the 'kiss and tell' stuff and people selling stories for outrageous amounts of money.... Of course, just about everything we see/read about the issue the moment will be coloured by the vested interest of the press

I would assume this place is reg'd in the US as well, no??

Exactly Hoochie  I said the same thing yesterday, big companies ,dodgy politicians (most of them ) could use the super injunction to threaten whistleblowers  etc.

But isn't the test if it is in the public interest rather than if the public might be interested?

Jeeeez.. surely his lawyers didn't forget about the separate justice system here ?

Fair play to the Herald. 

1. Mrs Smith said something which sounded like, "Not while there's hucking dogs on the street.

2. The general points I made were examples of my world class irony and sarcasm. Bottom line.... I can't understand why anyone would be bothered about what other adults do, whether they are very famous, or just celebrities, or that yo-yo knickered tart from up our road. It's lazy journalism

3. I stand by the fidelity of my FMs and FB pals.

Ooh I like that....

I thought this SI was meant to be global. Why is Scotland excempt then?

i thought the SI was only for papers and news reports publicised in England?? as that newspaper isn't sold in england...

I was surprised that our papers didn't publish it ( or maybe they did but i don't read them) but then many of them our UK owned.

I don't think it's possible for an English court to make a judgement that is enforceable beyond its jurisdiction. As already  said in this thread, Scotland has a separate legal system, and for whatever reason the player's lawyers didn't go to Scottish courts for an injunction.Numpties  

If I was said footballer I would sack my legal team and refuse to pay their bill.

What bunch of professionals are as daft as they've been!!

Trying to sue Twitter ~ even I would have to seriously question the legality of this

And not making sure the injunction was enforceable in Scotland

As Slinky says "numptys"

Love that!!

To be fair, they are not suing Twitter. They are asking for disclosure of the name of the journalist who leaked the names on Twitter and therefore broke the law (assuming the journalist is bound by English Law).

Unfortunately, they would need to disclose the name of their client, in order to obtain this information from Twitter.

I take your point Blizzie but it does seem to me to be an iffy exercise.  I mean, how can you police the internet??  Our judiciary is facing up to modern technology....and looking like losing.

I think its also been in the Spanish papers

I don't know!

Obviously, it would be impossible to target every single user who mentioned the footballer's name, but I have no problem with them going after the original tweeter, who decided it was so important for the public to be made aware of various 'celebrities' sex lives, that the law should be broken. If I was Jemima Khan, I'd be very tempted to use any spare cash I had to make sure that they spent a few months in prison.

When there are important, investigative journalism stories being gagged, then I'd have the opposite view (Trafigura, for example), but newspapers, or journalists, making money from Kiss and Tells, or even bare faced lies about people's sex lives, deserve everything they get, IMO.

 Ryan Giggs is suing Twitter. I can't Imogen why. 

HEAR HEAR.

And how do we know that this footballer wont face physical harm with all this rubbish coming out?  

Everyone should be allowed a private life unless the break the law, this footballer has not broken any laws other than falling for Imogen's charms.

Yes we call know who that is, but that doesn't mean thats the guy involved here,  how could anyone other than the footballers legal team know who it is?.

OMG Vids, we agree...(plus public interest imo)....Goes off to rethink position