Gagging Orders

[DT Withdean]

Ryan wastes £60,000 every few weeks as his order's renewed.
And eventually it gets out anyway.

Barristers are the winners. ££££

Gary Flitcroft up to 2002, blew £200,000 to stop his wife finding out, all eventually for nowt:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/footballer-at-centre-of-privacy-fight-named-as-garry-flitcroft-655958.html

 

[Barrel of Fun]

She doesn't think much of This Morning.

Twitter

Could have been worse. It could have been Daybreak.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

Poor footballer, how on earth is he ever going to have a successful career now ?

 

[beorhthelm]

if she is so devestated, why does she keep talking to the media about it?

 

[Lady Whistledown]

She doesn't think much of This Morning.

Twitter

Could have been worse. It could have been Daybreak.

Or Loose Women

 

[The Large One]

She is determined to get her story out for one reason - so she can get paid.

Quality high-class hooker stuff.

 

[bob monkhouse]

And now it turns out she was blackmailing the footballer and there was no 6 month affair after all.

She wanted loads of cash ..... and he gave her a Signed Shirt !

 

[adrian29uk]

She is determined to get her story out for one reason - so she can get paid.

Quality high-class hooker stuff.

This women has a history of messing around with other premiership footballers. Why?
The legal bills must be costing her thousands, so all the press coverage can help towards that.

 

[Rookie]

the injunction won't last much longer - the papers will appeal yesterdays ruling and the fact it is pretty much common knowledge will mean any respectable judge will have to end the injunction

 

[bhafc99]

And now it turns out she was blackmailing the footballer and there was no 6 month affair after all.

What a bitch

Still would though, wouldn't you.

 

[seagullondon]

Still would though, wouldn't you.

certainly. it would take something much bigger than her being a bitch for me not to. I for one would like more pics on this thread

 

[Triggaaar]

And now it turns out she was blackmailing the footballer and there was no 6 month affair after all.

What a bitch

Where does this 'fact' come from? Obviously if it was a 'fact', she'd be banged up. Ok, she has been banged up, but she'd be locked up too.

 

[ROSM]

There is something not good here. What we now have is a situation where an individual has had and affair (not disputed) and has gone to law to prevent the story being run. In the interim he has presented a statement saying that the other party asked for money from him (he didn't use the phrase blackmailed) and this has been presented as fact and the lady involved has not been able to challenge that as she has neither been investigated or charged yet of that offence.

Now in anyone's world that can't be seen on the face of it as justice.

 

[beorhthelm]

There is something not good here.

yes, someone apparently has an affair and one party decides they want cash to avoid telling the press. the key point here being that if both parties had wanted to keep it secret, they could both have been named in the injuction, or a super-injuction (where you cant report the injuction, this is not the case here). She didnt. why would that be...?

Actually, its the Judge that used the term "blackmail". if you read a report, the judge has stated some of the details of the case: Thomas arranged to meet the unnamed at a hotel, under the pretense of giving her tickets (there's some thing about working for the same charity in the backstory i recall). this meeting was conveniently photogrpahed. the judge says the suggestion is she arranged the photographer and was asking for money. She is in court, she can defend and present her case in court - outside of the media cirus. why would she rather talk about it so publically?

so, if there was indeed no affair, why is it an injustice to seek an injuction to prevent a false story? why if there was an affair did Thomas not want to be involved in the injuction too?

 

[TheBlueAndWhiteStrips]

I cant really take the Twitter rumours seriously when this is one of their tweets

Jeremy Clarkson has an injunction preventing the publication or mention of intimate photographs of him and Jemima Khan.

Seriously Jeremy "Power" Clarkson and Jemima Khan?

 

[ROSM]

yes, someone apparently has an affair and one party decides they want cash to avoid telling the press. the key point here being that if both parties had wanted to keep it secret, they could both have been named in the injuction, or a super-injuction (where you cant report the injuction, this is not the case here). She didnt. why would that be...?

Actually, its the Judge that used the term "blackmail". if you read a report, the judge has stated some of the details of the case: Thomas arranged to meet the unnamed at a hotel, under the pretense of giving her tickets (there's some thing about working for the same charity in the backstory i recall). this meeting was conveniently photogrpahed. the judge says the suggestion is she arranged the photographer and was asking for money. She is in court, she can defend and present her case in court - outside of the media cirus. why would she rather talk about it so publically?

so, if there was indeed no affair, why is it an injustice to seek an injuction to prevent a false story? why if there was an affair did Thomas not want to be involved in the injuction too?

none of the claims about her selling the story or indeed blackmailing him have been tested in a court of law. they were submissions made by his lawyers which have been quoted verbatim. she cannot defend herself as she hasn't had these allegations made to her in court.

I also understand that the reason she wasn't included in the injunction is because she didn't have the funds to launch a request and the man involved did not include her within his. So for that reason she has been named and is now left in the position where she cannot publicly give her side of the story. It may prove that she is guilty of the allegations but we need to presume she is innocent.

 

[beorhthelm]

none of the claims about her selling the story or indeed blackmailing him have been tested in a court of law. they were submissions made by his lawyers which have been quoted verbatim. she cannot defend herself as she hasn't had these allegations made to her in court.

the details were attributed to the Judge , his reading and summary of the details behind the injunction.

In his judgement, the judge said: "It now seems that the claimant may well have been ‘set up’ so that photographs could be taken of Miss Thomas going to one or other, or both, of the hotels." ...
"The evidence before the court at that point, therefore, appeared strongly to suggest that the claimant was being blackmailed (although that is not how he put it himself).

the point about her being party to the injuction is between her and the person who took it out f course. but it would shirley have been in his interests to name her in the injunction if she had wanted to keep this all quiet, as she claims. she has done nothing but court publicity on the matter.

 

[ROSM]

the details were attributed to the Judge , his reading and summary of the details behind the injunction.




the point about her being party to the injuction is between her and the person who took it out f course. but it would shirley have been in his interests to name her in the injunction if she had wanted to keep this all quiet, as she claims. she has done nothing but court publicity on the matter.

Thanks for the link - I had read it previously.

The evidence has not been challenged or even open to challenge by Thomas or her legal team. It is prima facie evidence. All I'm saying is that she may potentially be guilty of this, but if she isn't then she will have had her name blackened and there's nothing she can do about it.

There is a saying that those who come to equity should come with clean hands. I fear that this principle is not being adopted and that there are some who have gone to law with less than a clean pair of hands and are using the law to hide their misdemeanours.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

To be honest, I imagine they probably did have an affair, it's hardly uncommon for footballers, or married men, or men, or just people in general, to get it while they can.

Her name is not "blackened" as a result though: she's always been known as one of those females who hangs around places frequented by rich and famous men, primarily sportsmen. I once heard Danielle Lloyd described in an article as "a sort of theme park for footballers", which I think fits the bill perfectly in this case.

Fine, screw who you want, love, as can, er, the "unnamed" but please, spare us the tears before bedtime when, unsurprisingly, said footballer goes crawling back to his wife and kids. I have no sympathy for either of them.

 

[Norman Baker suck my lozenge]

Anyone got the link of her playing the fleshy flute?
there's one doing the rounds apparently.