Superinjunctions
 

Now that twitter has apparently blown the lid on a big pile of of stories that the British were not allowed to talk about can any of those over there now comment on the validity of this information?.......
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/c...-201105093787/
....and was Andrew Marr in the closet with them:03:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13503847
So despite Giggs now being on the news on just about every British media outlet today the courts still say the British media cannot mention it. Neither can they say that Goodwin is a dirty banker:rotfl2:

LMAO...no pun intended :DL

It's all out now, a Lib Dem MP said the G word in the Commons so the Beeb can at last print it.

What a fuss over nothing, as if the average Joe gives a flying hoot about what Giggs does in his spare time. :nope:

But quite aside from anything else, everyone in the country has known that Giggs was the footballer in question for months now. Kind of makes you wonder why they bother...and now he wants to sue Twitter. I wonder if he thinks King Canute was a Danish goalkeeper?

Cut his knob off, dirty sod. Your a married man you fart.

Superinjunctions are for the rich not for the poor, silly thing is the courts have still not lifted it. :doh:

But its the story behind the story Oberon, don't forget that the story which started this current scandal over gagging the press was about a large company banning anyone from even mentioning that its illegal dumping of toxic waste was killing and injuring people.
OK so its now down to soccer players pleading to the courts that revelations about their indiscretions will "make the crowds do upsetting chants about me when I play", but the issue of press freedom is still the same.

Most definitely :yep: