Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

in thinking the "premiership footballer" now suing Twitter needs an advsior to tell him to stop being so bloody stupid?

173 replies

DillyDaydreaming · 21/05/2011 14:10

Well am I.

If HE or any of his legal advisors are reading this - pass on a message.

"If you'd kept schtum it would all be blowing well over by now, instead you've reignited it and people will be discussing it for longer. Go out - buy your wife a massive "sorry I was a prat" present and move on with your life".

Oh and employ someone with some common sense to ADVISE you in future - not some rich lawyers who will now be richer as a result of this fruitless action.

Amy dying to see if Twitter deliver up what's demanded in the 7 days they have. Suspect their lawyers might be saying "this is America, they are in the UK - tell em to go take a hike".

OP posts:
ednurse · 21/05/2011 15:04

Imagine the headlines....."Twit sues Twitter over twat" Hmm

springbokscantjump · 21/05/2011 15:10

Twitter have their headquarters in california and the US have pretty tight laws protecting individuals privacy. I read that they are currently resisting far larger and more concerted efforts from people getting access to those involved in the Wikileaks scandal so 'ctb' is on a hiding to nothing.

The only reason why I even know his name is because I became interested due to the superinjunction nonsense. People would have grabbed hold of the next celebrity scandal by now if he had just apologised. His wife knows so who is he protecting? Does he think his sponsors will still keep him?

L8rAllig8r · 21/05/2011 15:10

I don't understand.

The super injunction protects CTB, whoever he may be. The rumours on twitter are all based around one particular footballer, and noone else, as far as I can tell. So by going to court again and saying 'my super injunction has been broken by twitter' is he not effectively outing HIMSELF? As if the rumours on twitter had got the wrong person, he wouldn't mention it. So surely going to court again only proves the rumours on twitter are right. Right?

springbokscantjump · 21/05/2011 15:16

I hadn't thought about it like that. But yeah, he is pretty much saying 'yip that's me but noo only I can say it's me' in a tantruming child kind of way.

catsareevil · 21/05/2011 15:32

I hadnt heard anything of him for years before all this superinjunction coverage. If there had been some kiss and tell story published it wouldnt have registered with me, shagger footballers are ten a penny. Thats if it is who I think it is of course Hmm Grin

SockShitter · 21/05/2011 15:35
TidyDancer · 21/05/2011 15:40

I think he's insisting on the injunction continuing because of the details that aren't in the public domain in the way his name is. He's trying to make out there were a few one night stands and some blackmailing going on, and poor little RB tried to be nice by giving her match tickets and a football shirt, but was forced to call in lawyers when she started negotiating with newspapers for the story. BULLSHIT. There was a seven month fullblown relationship and he doesn't want that out there for his wife to know (who is probably being lied to as much as everyone else re the length of the relationship), or for Imogen's side to be validated.

He is an absolute scumbag. His reputation and public standing will never recover from this. Which is the opposite of what would've happened if he'd just admitted the truth and not got the injunction. It would've been yesterday's news by now, except because of what he's done, he'll always be the loser throwing his toys out of the pram. Fucking stupid moron.

LouMacca · 21/05/2011 15:40

'I don't understand.

The super injunction protects CTB, whoever he may be. The rumours on twitter are all based around one particular footballer, and noone else, as far as I can tell. So by going to court again and saying 'my super injunction has been broken by twitter' is he not effectively outing HIMSELF? As if the rumours on twitter had got the wrong person, he wouldn't mention it. So surely going to court again only proves the rumours on twitter are right. Right?'

L8rAllig8r - that's exactly what I thought! He has really shot himself in the foot! Twitter is absolutely awash with people naming him as we speak. It's only a matter of time before Miss Thomas sells her story..........

troisgarcons · 21/05/2011 16:02

I must be the only person in the whole of Christendom who doesnt know who it is

Gimme a clue!

Team and shirt number will suffice!!!!!

LouMacca · 21/05/2011 16:08

Man Utd. 11. I believe. Allegedly. Have I said too much?

TeamLemon · 21/05/2011 16:11

"Some married British soccer player had an affair with this lady, and we guessed it was Ryan Giggs. But the media couldn't reveal his name because of a court order. So someone signed up for Twitter and started naming names, including that of Ryan Giggs. But we still don't know for certain that Ryan Giggs had an affair, because the newspapers are still barred from reporting that Ryan Giggs had an affair.

Today a soccer player, who may or may not be Ryan Giggs (we have no idea!), filed a lawsuit against Twitter, because one of its users reported that Ryan Giggs had an affair. Why this footballer would be suing, we have no idea, unless they're upset that it was reported that Ryan Giggs had an affair. And for them to have a legal basis for the suit, the Tweeted information must be from the injuncted documents. So when someone says that Ryan Giggs had an affair, Ryan Giggs would have had to have an affair for this unnamed footballer (maybe Ryan Giggs) to bring a suit in the first place.

It's unclear how our reporting of others' reporting that Ryan Giggs had an affair fits in here. As an American site writing that Ryan Giggs had an affair, we're probably not subject to British media law. But even so, we're not saying that we've discovered that Ryan Giggs had an affair: only that some people are saying that Ryan Giggs had an affair, and that one Twitter user says Ryan Giggs had an affair, and that some soccer player is suing over people saying that Ryan Giggs had an affair.

At press time, Ryan Giggs had not returned our request for comment."

ohmyfucksy · 21/05/2011 16:11

Very funny.

Because, before we didn't know for sure that the footballer named on Twitter was the correct one.

Now we do! By suing Twitter he has actually confirmed that it is him.

What larks.

Original poster
DillyDaydreaming · 21/05/2011 16:11

I think The Sun headline was "Twit Sues Twitter" GrinGrinGrin

OP posts:
GandTiceandaslice · 21/05/2011 16:12

ha ha teamlemon.
MNHQ may delete it though. Hmm

ohmyfucksy · 21/05/2011 16:12

x post with about a million people

ohmyfucksy · 21/05/2011 16:14

His lawyers must be laughing up their sleeves - lots more lovely money! First for the superinjunction, now for suing Twitter.

BellaBearisWideAwake · 21/05/2011 16:15

Nitwit sues twitter over writ, I believe

tribpot · 21/05/2011 16:23

He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named isn't actually suing Twitter, he wants them to reveal who it is who said his name on Twitter. Still a completely stooopid move which only perpetuates the story, what the hell is the point?

MmeLindor. · 21/05/2011 16:34

Are MN just leaving these threads now? Seems to be little use in keeping deleting them for the next one to pop up.

RatherBeACyborg · 21/05/2011 16:35

I am so tempted to sign up to twitter now just to name him. Knobber.

meditrina · 21/05/2011 16:36

The BBC article also says: "It comes days after a High Court judge said the footballer was "fully entitled" to anonymity. Justice Eady has reserved judgement on lifting the injunction after a private hearing with the man's lawyers, the Sun and former Miss Wales Imogen Thomas in London. However, since news of the disclosure order became public on Friday hundreds of people have tweeted information revealing the footballer's identity."

Now, if "reserving judgement on lifting the injunction" means we are mid-way through a legal process which may or may not lead to the lifting (on the grounds of the information being now in the public domain), then it does make a kind of sense to establish who put the information out there so they can (perhaps) be held accountable for their actions in breaking the injunction.

There is precedent for service providers to give such information as they have about account holders in response to a properly executed warrant.

Amaretti · 21/05/2011 16:44

Tee hee. Did anyone listen to the piece on Today about this this morning? Just before 9am and I swear the reporter said "And what Ryan... The footballer... is claiming" Oooops!

troisgarcons · 21/05/2011 16:51

Thank you!

I did think it might be - seeing as it's all over the Welsh on-line papers - would make sense.

frgaaah · 21/05/2011 17:02

I think that he should have left this well alone.

It's sort of promoting his name with this story even more, isn't it? To the point where I know who it is (and I have no interest in football, privacy laws or super injunctions).

Pathetic really. I mean, there are some lengths people go to to enforce court rulings, sure. I get that. But this is just taking it to the extreme. And I think to an unpractical level. You just can't censor the internet - it's one of the damn thing's greatest strengths, and greatest weaknesses!

It's a bit like trying to censor gossip at the school gates - impractical, and a total waste of time.

Debs75 · 21/05/2011 17:11

The thing is with these 'super injunction' there is always someone on a forum who knows who it is so it always ends up being leaked.
DP told me it was the welsh hairy chested one months ago, he also knew about a lot of the other cheating footballers before the injunctions were out.

It is too hard to censor now with the internet and it seems twitter makes gossip so easy, must learn how to do it