to be REALLY angry at this

[SeymoreButts]

I've had no interest in this story until I read this. He's issued legal proceedings against Imogen, what a shit. Surely this madness has to be stopped now. His name is all over twitter, it's essentially in the public domain now. Can you sue individual twitter members anyway?

I'd ask someone to PM me who this footballer is but quite frankly I couldn't give a toss.

I've now worked out who it is and I have to agree that if no injunctions had been taken out then it would never have got the attention it has. Most people would have thought, "Oh, another one.", then forgot about it. Taking out an injunction has simply made the situation more interesting to the public.

boc you called the child disgusting" you didn't say the way she was treated was disgusting in your first post. Absolutely no need to type that. Every one knows that a baby born out of wedlock used to be known as a bastard but we have moved on now. No excuse for it imho.

What about the injunction banning details of the sacking of a woman who's had an affair with a colleague? He wanted to avoid further embarrassment so she was sacked. WTF?

What is the chance of him being successful in suing Twitter?
I mean it would be very worrying if he won, wouldn't it? Could he?

I find it hilarious that if he hadn't had this super injunction it would have been yesterdays news by now. What a first class idiot.

On Radio 4 they were saying that he's not suing twitter, but asking for an order for them to reveal the names and details of some of the people involved, and that the reason he's doing that is that the paper's were claiming that they should be allowed to publish as the information was in the public domain anyway. The suspicion from his camp is that the papers, or agents of the papers, were spreading the information on Twitter, so that the paper could use the public domain argument and win the right to publish. Not sure of the truth of that, but it does lend another dimension to the case, if true.
Disclaimer-doesn't mean I think the injunctions should have been granted...he is an unfaithful pig and the fact that he has been allowed by the male establishment to try to cover up his despicable behaviour is pitiful...

The way he is acting now speaks volumes about his original motivation in taking out the injunction imho - absolutely not about protecting his family.

Here's some of the discussions about other celebs who have tried to get super injunctions

super injunction on twitter

Has anyone checked his wiki page... If I were him I'd sue whoever changed that before Twitter
(disclaimer: It wasn't me!)

On the twitter page I posted, its the injuction spreadsheet on the left hand side that is really quite interesting...it seems to be updated live and on-going.

off to his wiki page now....

Agreed he is amking a complete tit of himself. My mum , who only really listens to radio4 and read The Telegraph phoned me to ask who it was - she normally couldn't give a toss what footballer is shagging who.

As mentioned up thread I think the legal system in the Uk has shown its true colours and is only really interested in rich white men and keeping them happy (and still rich).

Just looked at that table. I worry though about how much of it is true - anyone could contribute to that and whilst arseholes like mr briggs are getting away with this crap innocent parties are potentially being named unfairly or unnessesarily.

I dont get why people are saying 'poor Imogen' tbh, yes HE made marriage vows which he broke, but equally SHE knows how the media works and how women who have affairs with married men are viewed, especially men in the public eye. She seems like a fame hungry slut, now she is infamous. She deserves no pity not does he, only his wife

why is it poor imogen - she decided to sleep with amarried man and probably not for the first time. hes as bad as well. shes a SLAPPER!!!!

fame hungry slut? nice.

She deserves no pity for her actions, that is true.
But she does not deserve to be 'outed' while he is protected.

And more importantly, she does not deserve to be made responsible for his choices. She didn't hold a gun to his head. She didn't 'steal' him. (A person cannot be 'stolen' like that! They choose.) It wasn't an accident on his part. She didn't bewitch him. He made a choice to dip his wick. Blame for that choice lies 100% with him. He either made a choice to pursue her - HIS choice. Or he made a choice to accept her advances - HIS choice.

I am so very tired of women being blamed (in the media, by society as a whole) for the choices men make. Even when that choice is to sleep with the woman, the woman is still not responsible for the man making that choice.

I find that the whole thing is geared to making men not responsible for their actions in respect of their interactions with women. I don't like that.

Yes its a horrible name for a horrible worthless piece of trash who thinks nothing of having a 7 month sexual relationship with a married man. Of course he is a man slag of the highest order but ive no idea why everyone is painting this little tramp as some kind of innocent party! Dont want to be known as a woman who puts it about left right and centre with married men- dont sleep with married men then- durrr!

I agree...she may not be lovely but we seem to have a tendancy in this society to be harder on the women than we are on the men. he is the one who made the vows to his wife. She made no such vows. She may have dubious morals but he is far worse.

I also strongly object to our laws being made up in court and based on how much moeny you have to afford the privacy.

Some sort of protection is due the innocent celebs to provide them with a right to privacy but when this is based on your wealth, it is unfair.

And besides...I hate being told i can't know something...

Bimbo your language is wildly offensive.