# england footballer obtains super-injunction against media



## strung out (Aug 17, 2010)

place your bets here on who and what it's about

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...otballers-super-injunction-stifles-media.html


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 17, 2010)

Michael Dawson collects gnomes


----------



## strung out (Aug 17, 2010)

it's too late david james. the news about your move to bristol city got out weeks ago


----------



## The Octagon (Aug 17, 2010)

S-S-S-S-Susudio....


----------



## stupid kid (Aug 17, 2010)

This paragraph is quite interesting



> The existence of the latest super-injunction - so called because the media are not even allowed to report details of their existence - *is in the public domain now only because a newspaper on which it was not served published a report about it*.


----------



## editor (Aug 17, 2010)

No names, please.


----------



## ernestolynch (Aug 17, 2010)

Not even about whiney scouse cradle snatchers?


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 17, 2010)

For God's sake, stop with the 16-year old sister stuff. It was old 6 months ago.

In any event, it would be a bit daft obtaining an injunction when Google already returns 80,000 results for Gerrard Injunction and the world and his sister knows the 'story'.


----------



## shagnasty (Aug 17, 2010)

It usually comes out in end especially now we have the web


----------



## Epico (Aug 17, 2010)

Any sources other than the fucking Daily Mail?


----------



## i_got_poison (Aug 17, 2010)

these injunctions always follows someone whipping it out.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 17, 2010)

editor said:


> No names, please.


Sorry. _Someone_ collects gnomes


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 17, 2010)

A very tall footballer is _actually_ a robot. But a Terminator.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 17, 2010)

Suddenly it all makes sense 

Damn you James Cameron!!


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 17, 2010)

> Gerrard is distressed that Peter Crouch has taken all the steam away from his own infidelity and has thus issued an injunction to prevent further females who have shagged Peter Crouch from releasing their stories.


Spoof


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 17, 2010)

Lord Camomile said:


> Suddenly it all makes sense
> 
> Damn you James Cameron!!



I believe that a very young footballer whose name is nearly that of an English county and who plays for a club with a cannon on their badge somewhere in the Northern part of the largest city in England has been sent back through time to father the leader of the resistance against the machines.


----------



## gabi (Aug 17, 2010)

Presumably it's just the Stevie G story again after he successfully stamped it out a few months ago...

boring stuff. altho as always interesting that one law exists for slebs and one for the rest of us.


----------



## editor (Aug 17, 2010)

gabi said:


> Presumably it's just the Stevie G story again after he successfully stamped it out a few months ago...
> 
> boring stuff. altho as always interesting that one law exists for slebs and one for the rest of us.


Yep, and it frustrates me the fuck out of me sometimes, but given urban's high search engine profile we really have to tread carefully.


----------



## gabi (Aug 17, 2010)

True..

Out of interest though, how does Twitter get away with thousands of tweets broadcasting this person's name?


----------



## gabi (Aug 17, 2010)

And another thing - I thought a superinjunction meant that the media couldn't actually report that there was an injunction (ie, the difference between a regular injunction)..

how's the mail getting away with this one?


----------



## editor (Aug 17, 2010)

gabi said:


> True..
> 
> Out of interest though, how does Twitter get away with thousands of tweets broadcasting this person's name?


Libel damages are partly assessed on the perceived readership of the libel, so it would be far more lucrative to go after an established website than an anonymous Tweeter.

The Mail has vast armies of lawyers at their disposal, so they presumably have advised the paper that they can get away with this one.


----------



## strung out (Aug 17, 2010)

fwiw, twitter doesn't actually seem to be crawling with the name this time as far as i can tell. severely doubt it's the same gerrard stuff as last time, considering that that rumour had pretty much no basis in fact, whereas a super-injunction covers something which is true.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Aug 17, 2010)

Unless there _is no super-injunction_  

Much like the conspiracy theory that all conspiracy theories are made up to distract you from the _real_ conspiracy theory, maybe this 'super-injunction' that the Mail are reporting on doesn't really exist, but there is in fact an _ultra_-injunction that not even the people involved know about.

That would explain why they're 'allowed' to report it.


----------



## stupid dogbot (Aug 17, 2010)

I heard a rumour that ****** ********* did the grim ****** with a ******* in the *****


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Aug 17, 2010)

Correct, but for one detail SD: It was in the ******** not the *****


----------



## hektik (Aug 17, 2010)

editor said:


> The Mail has vast armies of lawyers at their disposal, so they presumably have advised the paper that they can get away with this one.



the last paragraph has the details why the mail thinks they can get away with it: 



> The existence of the latest super-injunction - so called because the media are not even allowed to report details of their existence - is in the public domain now only because a newspaper on which it was not served published a report about it.



once it's in the public domain, you can report on the existence of the super-injunction, if not the details itself. presumably, the lawyers for the football missed out a paper. Or the existing paper leaked the story to another one, in order to force through the lifting of the ban on the basis that its in the public domain anyway.


----------



## Idaho (Aug 17, 2010)

The Mail are such champions of free speach:



> MPs and civil liberties campaigners have expressed alarm at the ease with which celebrities can obtain orders to gag the press.
> Celebrities are increasingly relying on the injunctions to quash negative stories, rather than using the libel courts to challenge them.
> Critics say that many of those who seek injunctions are primarily concerned with protecting their commercial interests and not their privacy.



In terms of a free press - being able to report on footballers' sex lives is right up there on the critical list. Thank god we have these guardians of truth protecting us.

And in other news -Kelly Brook has droopy knockers:

You clicked didn't you?


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 17, 2010)

Yeah, she's suddenly become an utter swine.


----------



## weepiper (Aug 17, 2010)

Daily Mail in 'hateful rag' shocker


----------



## Idaho (Aug 17, 2010)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> Yeah, she's suddenly become an utter swine.


 
I know. I'm simply not prepared to put up with her any more.


----------



## stupid dogbot (Aug 17, 2010)

Divisive Cotton said:


> Correct, but for one detail SD: It was in the ******** not the *****


 
Close, then.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Aug 17, 2010)

who really gives a fuck who it is?

it's boring.

"footballer does something naughty shocker".

I really couldn't care less.

millions are dying in Pakistan and elsewhere in the world and Peter Crouch is on the front page of the papers


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 17, 2010)

I care, i've always cared.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Aug 17, 2010)

It's probably a certain ex-England capt outed as a BNP member.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 17, 2010)

Fack off - he was dawn in barwking on the anti-bnp thing. (did i get the cockNEY accent right)


----------



## little_legs (Aug 17, 2010)

barwking = bwarkin
thing = fing

on a serious note, what the fuck is 'super' injunction?


----------



## Refused as fuck (Aug 17, 2010)

The Cockney accent always was and always will be wrong.


----------



## little_legs (Aug 17, 2010)

little_legs said:


> on a serious note, what the fuck is 'super' injunction?


 
ffs, it's a gagging order. boring.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Aug 17, 2010)

Ah, so it's Ashley Cole.


----------



## Jorum (Aug 17, 2010)

It means that no only are media not allowed to talk about the story, they're not allowed to talk about the fact that they are not allowed to talk about the story.

The idea is that the public should basically never even know there is anything happening.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 17, 2010)

Jorum said:


> It means that no only are media not allowed to talk about the story, they're not allowed to talk about the fact that they are not allowed to talk about the story.
> 
> The idea is that the public should basically never even know there is anything happening.



To be fair, very little probably is.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Aug 18, 2010)

Jorum said:


> The idea is that the public should basically never even know there is anything happening.


 
Complete success.


----------



## rosa (Aug 18, 2010)

little_legs said:


> on a serious note, what the fuck is 'super' injunction?


It's a bit like the difference between normal and super tampons. A bit more expensive and a lot thicker.


----------



## aylee (Aug 18, 2010)

little_legs said:


> on a serious note, what the fuck is 'super' injunction?


 
It's an injunction that not only prevents people from revealing confidential information, but also prevents them from even stating that an injunction has been obtained.  The thinking is that if a paper is injuncted from publishing a story stating that Mike Bassett has been caught in a sting with two hookers, but can say "Mike Bassett today obtained an injunction ...." then that will have the effect of starting tongues wagging.  Of course, every time one of these injunctions comes to public knowledge, tongues start wagging anyway.  They are an abomination to anyone who believes that fair reporting of court proceedings is a vital component of free speech.


----------



## gabi (Aug 25, 2010)

The answer to this mystery appears to be on Twitter at the moment. Naughty boy.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 25, 2010)

I can't see any footballer's names trending...


----------



## gabi (Aug 25, 2010)

Not his name, no. But everything else you need to know to figure it out.


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 25, 2010)

So do papers not even have to think up stories any longer, just claim there is a superinjunction somewhere and leave the rest to our fetid imaginations?


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 25, 2010)

gabi said:


> Not his name, no. But everything else you need to know to figure it out.


 
Oh, I'm so shit at Twitter. I'm hardly ever on it. 140 characters is about 150 too few for me.

PM us then.


----------



## strung out (Aug 25, 2010)

is it joe cole?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Aug 25, 2010)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> Oh, I'm so shit at Twitter. I'm hardly ever on it. 140 characters is about 150 too few for me.
> 
> PM us then.


 
Can somebody let me know the goss too


----------



## agricola (Aug 25, 2010)

Isnt it the same person about whom 9/10ths of Premiership football rumours are about anyway?


----------



## strung out (Aug 25, 2010)

no, same club though

eta: allegedly


----------



## gabi (Aug 25, 2010)

Allegedly a misfiring striker who missed his sides trip south on the weekend due to a 'virus'.  Let's hope he didn't autograph the womans bed post this time. There's two of these injunctions goin at the mo, this is the second.


----------



## hektik (Sep 2, 2010)

A third england player has now also added himself to the super-injunction crew:

http://www.solicitorsjournal.com/story.asp?sectioncode=2&storycode=16844&c=1


----------



## stupid dogbot (Sep 2, 2010)

Perhaps it was the only way England players could think of to have the word "super" associated with them?


----------



## Epico (Sep 2, 2010)

They've shared a hotel room with William Hague?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 2, 2010)

pm?


----------



## paulhackett (Sep 4, 2010)

Wayne Rooney story in Sunday Mirror isn't one of the injuncted stories..


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 7, 2010)

Wayne Rooney doen't give a fuck, is prob more to the point.


----------



## 1927 (Sep 7, 2010)

I understood the 3 players were a robot dancer and two midfeilders who used to play at the same east end club, but one is now a scouser and the other plays for a Russian!

In one of the cases I am led to believe that rather than the case being simply about sex it is about sexuality, which is imho a totally different scenario altogther and a more correct use of the injunction.


----------



## thriller (Sep 9, 2010)

Someone PM me with the names and details of the allegations so i can then pass it on.


----------



## paulhackett (Sep 18, 2010)

The hooker in the Wayne Rooney has scooped the NOTW by revealing the name of another player on her twitter page.. are we allowed to just link or say who it is on here or do we have to be round the houses? The player has denied it. DK if it's one of the injuncted stories? Anyone?


----------



## rosa (Sep 18, 2010)

paulhackett66 said:


> The hooker in the Wayne Rooney has scooped the NOTW by revealing the name of another player on her twitter page.. are we allowed to just link or say who it is on here or do we have to be round the houses? The player has denied it. DK if it's one of the injuncted stories? Anyone?


If it's on Twitter it's in the public domain. Go for it. Is it Gary Neville?


----------



## 1927 (Sep 18, 2010)

paulhackett66 said:


> The hooker in the Wayne Rooney has scooped the NOTW by revealing the name of another player on her twitter page.. are we allowed to just link or say who it is on here or do we have to be round the houses? The player has denied it. DK if it's one of the injuncted stories? Anyone?


 
I think its a fake account.


----------



## paulhackett (Sep 18, 2010)

1927 said:


> I think its a fake account.



That did cross my mind - very strange if it's true and very strange if it isn't. Would have been even stranger if it had been Neville.. 

I must not be so gullible late at night. 
I must not be so gullible late at night. 
I must not be so gullible late at night.


----------



## rosa (Sep 19, 2010)

paulhackett66 said:


> That did cross my mind - very strange if it's true and very strange if it isn't. Would have been even stranger if it had been Neville..
> 
> I must not be so gullible late at night.
> I must not be so gullible late at night.
> I must not be so gullible late at night.


Tell everyone it was Neville anyway. Sling enough mud and all that....


----------



## paulhackett (Sep 19, 2010)

rosa said:


> Tell everyone it was Neville anyway. Sling enough mud and all that....



Right team, also not playing today..


----------



## AverageJoe (Sep 19, 2010)

Is there a particular M.O about revealing this persons name?......


----------



## 1927 (Sep 20, 2010)

AverageJoe said:


> Is there a particular M.O about revealing this persons name?......


 
Just chill out and listen to some Duran Duran from 1982 and watch the video set on a boat!


----------



## AverageJoe (Sep 20, 2010)




----------



## revol68 (Sep 20, 2010)

I don't see how it could be the said Duran Duran song namesake as he was already mentioned in passing in the Rooney story, with the hooker saying he was 'rude', saying that she also claimed Rooney called Ronaldo a wanker after he walked past, which would have been something considering he was in Madrid at the time.

Apart from that it wouldn't shock me if said 80's hit was up to such antics.


----------



## The Octagon (Sep 22, 2010)

Hmmm, twitter going a little nuts over an odd rumour involving Goldenballs.


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 22, 2010)

This thread is among the absolute weirdest things I've ever read on Urban.


----------



## Kanda (Sep 22, 2010)

http://www.mtv.co.uk/artists/david-beckham/news/238185-david-beckham-victoria-beckham-cheat


----------

