Four UK celebrities hiding sex scandals behind legal super-injunctions are named on Wikipedia Read

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


The Aussies are just sour losers, always has been, always will

But thats where the Kiwis come in to it and take the mickey out of them

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


LMAO

considering how many people in this country actually take soccer seriously were fricken awesome!!!

its our fourth or fifth most popular sport and we still make it to the world cup, so well done to us.

AFL is taken seriously by most people in OZ.
I could go into the merits of the game or mention the physical abilities that are needed far outweigh those of any other sport but instead Ill just say that we wouldnt want to be good or taken seriously at a sport that is dominated by pansies who regularly shed fake tears in order to get some attention, namely soccer.

I can understand as an englishmen why soccer is so important to you as you guys do suck at everything else (howd you guys do in the last olympics or the commonwealth games? oh thats right you got ur asses handed to you on a plate by us in pretty much everything )

And as for cricket, I personally cant stand it, 20/20 are ok but I would rather watch paint dry or even golf before a test match. Cricket you guys can have it, congratulations your good at the only sport thats more boring than soccer *pats the little englishman on the head*

P.s no serious offence intended just havin some fun

reply to post by bluemirage5


Oh how cute a Kiwi here as well.
I could never get mad at a Kiwi, you guys are like slightly backward, funny speaking aussies so ur OK.

I dont follow any form of rugby but how have the Aussies been doing? I assume from your post you beat us at something recently and we had a bitch session about it.

But in our defence if you playing something, anything against your retarded cousin and you lose your gonna be upset and look for excuses as to why it happened

(for the Kiwis here, in that metaphor Oz and NZ are the cousins and you guys were the retatrded ones. If any Kiwis need me to explain what a metaphor is just U2U me and Ill use smaller words)

Im sure many people will get there panties in a bunch over this post but Aussies and Kiwis have a special relationship where the greater the insult the more it shows our love and mutual admiration so no need for trolling

reply to post by IkNOwSTuff


My sons are die hard soccer fans and I'm a die hard rugby union fan; AFL is a joke although one of the their finest players is the son of an ex All Black.....but I still won't watch it.

After FIFA 2010, there were literally thousands of Socceroos shirts on the racks and they tried to give the Socceroos shirts away for free (no BS either!!!) and still no one wanted them; you try to find an All White shirt and it costs you $140.00. You go looking for an All Black jersey and they want $180.00 and are always sold out but the Wallabies jerseys just sit and sit and sit on the racks until they collect dust.

reply to post by bluemirage5


True true, but thats only because those sports suck

Australians in general just dont care about soccer, we love sports and watch almost anything that has OZ competing but afterwards we dont care. And as for Rugby, its only played in QLD and NSW even then maybe half of those states prefer AFL

It may surprise you but prior to WW2 AFL was almost as popular in NZ as OZ. Unfortunately all the intelligent athletic Kiwis were killed and what was left were the meatheads hence the reason rugby was so popular from then onwards

P.s why would you think there would be a market for wallaby or socceroo merchandise in NZ? are you a Kiwi or Queenslander?

reply to post by IkNOwSTuff


I'm not just referring to soccer. It applies to all sports. (The incident of phelps get his eigth gold which i saw with my own eyes still sickens me with the official time-keeper being his sponsor, and who can forget the wonderful chap winning all those tour de france races with no help from any sort of drugs. the whole of sport is a con and if you think otherwise your a mug.)

you asked why these ended up in court. you obviously have not been following this super-injuction coverage properly.

let me help explain

Mr X who is married with kids and is an upstanding member of the sport/entertainment industry. He is very well respected and receives great praise for his great sporting prowess or wonderful acting skills. He is very wealthy.

He decides he needs some extra marital excitement.

Finds a willing participant. Has some fun with her, even buys her some presents , treats her well.

Some day out of the blue he has an attack of guilt. He thinks to himself , 'oh sh1t' , if this tart I have been shagging decides to talkk to the press about our affair my marraige and even career and those sweet sponsorship deals could all be gone.

So , Mr X applies for his super injuction.

Mr X obtains a super injuction.

The girl he has been sleeping with and promising to leave his wife and kids for then receives a phone call out of the blue from his legal team that he has just obtained a super injuction regarding their affair. THis is the first she has heard about it. She is told if she opens her mouth she will end up in jail. She is probably at the same time told never to contact him again.

You understandig how this works yet?

reply to post by JohnySeagull


I fully understand the concept of a super injunction but no I havent been following any stories on any celebs and their sex lives (I know, how boring and out of touch am I)

I still dont understand why you or anyone else feels the need to hear about this, extra marital affairs happen everyday and while I strongly disagree with adultery ITS NO ONES BUSINESS!!!

In these situations when it gets into the media its not normally the athlete who suffers the most but his wife and family, it would be bad enough to have a cheating husband but to have it splashed across the media is just sick.

yeah they make alot of money and their in the public eye but how does this mean were ENTITLED to every aspect of their private lives?
In England I dont blame people who can afford it getting super injunctions to kee their private lives private, Im sure you would be aware of how bad the tabloids are there, recently it was found that a MSM paper had been illegally tapping celebs phones. Is this OK because their actors or sportsmen and make alot of money? Hells no!!!!!

If they have done something wrong then yes publish whatever it is, but to muck rake for the sake of selling papers is just wrong.

As you said these women knew the men were married so I have no sympathy for them, anyone who knowingly the enters an affair is just as bad as the married person And any "warnings" they gave via the media are done out of spite, fior financial gain to get their 15minutes (probably why they slept with them in the first place). If they really fely bad for the wife an anonymous phone call would be the noble thing to do. Ive seen interviews of similar situations and Ive never believed the "I felt bad and thought its time his wife knew" funny how they generally get an attack of concious when the guy has finally gotten sick of them.

I cant stress enough that I dont condone adultery and super injunctions, I find it sad that there nescessary as privacy doesnt seem to exist anymore.

You have said nothing to explain why you feel these stories should be gossip fodder for people to fill newspaper columns or talk about when they dont have anything intelligent to say.

Ill put it in a simple question and see if I can get a simple answer.
Why should anyones affairs or private life be acceptable news when it has nothing to do with anyone else let alone the public good?

P.s I apologise for the way I spoke on the other thread, I was a bit worked up and while I didnt agree with what you said insults were uncalled for, Sorry

reply to post by IkNOwSTuff


I don't care about any celebrties. Don't care who they are sleeping with. Don't care about adultry. Don't care who is having sex with who. Don't understand how people find this interesting.

What I don't like about this is that the super injuction allows the wealthier people in society to place a gag on freedom of speech. Stars and celebs are allowed get away with this.This is because the much more powerful people and wealthier people in society have even bigger things they need to keep hidden. Now imagine what those things are?

As I stated before if a poor person commits a crime they will get locked up. A rich person will escape jail has long as they make a generous contribution to the victim or to a charity. I have seen this for some of the most sickening crimes comitted.

In the example I provided the story is very similar to some actual events. I do not think the behaviour of Mr X is acceptable. I believe it is an abuse of the legal system.

Then we have one of the guys that fessed up recently. He spends Sunday morning on national tv grilling policticans and public figures about their behaviour and all the time he has a super injuction hiding the fact he cheated on his wife.

In the great scheme of things I will admit its of little importance but the way they use the legal system to hide behind is a little irritating.


( You don't need to apologise for anything. No offence was taken. Dosen't make your comment unappreciated though. I only mention things like that to make you think about it yourself. People will pay much more attention to you if you leave that crap out and I will also have less ammo to fire back at you in an argument. It could even be considered a cheap shot by me. )

It would appear that we are debating different topics.

Im saying that just because someones in the public eye doesnt mean we should have access to every aspect of their lives.
If Im not mistaken your saying that you shouldnt be able to buy your way out of a crime.
I dont think you would find anyone who would disagree with your point.

In the example given with "Mr X" again no crime has been committed, yeah hes being a hypocrite but if that was a crime most of us would have a criminal record at this stage. It seems that because hes a celeb or has money you feel it wrong that he can pay to have personal aspects of his life suppressed.
This to me only becomes an issue if the media cared about someone who didnt have money to suppress it and printed a story on their infidelity.

In my opinion using a super injunction under these circumstances WHERE NO CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED is an example of a healthy justice system at work but I think your point is its a slippery slope and gagging on these issues can justify gagging on other more serious issues, No argument here.

Freedom of speech is a great ideal but what about if that freedom impinges on anothers equally god given right to privacy?

To summarise: no crime should be covered up and no ones personal lives should be used as news fodder to keep the masses distracted

Originally posted by JohnySeagull
The whole thing is a joke. This proves there is not freedom of speech in the UK.

No, what this proves is quite the opposite.

The judges have interpreted laws in a particular way, as is their wont and their job. This area of law is quite new and the precedents and practice need to be established. That is, how the European Convention of Human Rights is to be incorporated into evolving English law.

What has happened is that the decisions are being questioned because for the law to work, it must be seen to be fair and have public support. The questions revolve around the perception of unfairness and the balance between whether you or I have any business knowing about other people’s private lives. The wish to know is often for salacious and trivial reasons. The super injunctions that we know of involve sex and affairs.

The judiciary have interpreted the law. It is now up to the politicians to provide clarification by modifying the law so that it can be interpreted in another way.

It is not indicative of a lack of freedom of speech in the UK. It is a demonstration of the evolution of law. If there was not freedom of speech then we would not be having this discussion. Dear me, some people.

Personally, I am uncomfortable with super injunctions and they should be scrapped and I think they will be discontinued as a legal device. If someone cannot keep their John Thomas in their trousers (or football shorts) then they deserve to have that fact reported in the News of the World, or similar tabloid’s whose core business is peddling titillation as “news”. If these celebrities did not want to harm their family by their actions, then blah, blah, blah etc…

Regards

Originally posted by bluemirage5
The Aussies are just sour losers, always has been, always will

But thats where the Kiwis come in to it and take the mickey out of them

Australians certainly are bad losers, and they've had plenty of practice at it recently !

Whether it be cricket, rugby, football, or numerous other sports, they've had their arses served to them on a plate in the last couple of years by a number of nations, with the ''poms'' being at the forefront of this arse-serving.

Aussies often use the phrase ''whinging poms'', yet the irony is that this phrase is usually uttered in that whinge-like, Australian drawl. Whinging about the whingers.

I like Australia, but sometimes their populace can be a bit cheeky and less than deferential towards their British colonial masters.

Queen Elizabeth II literally pwns Australia.

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff


LMAO

considering how many people in this country actually take soccer seriously were fricken awesome!!!

No, you're absolutely rubbish at football. Even New Zealand outperformed you at the World Cup.

Football is taken seriously by a lot of Australians, especially those who are descended from immigrants who hail from football-mad countries, such as Italy, Greece, Serbia, Croatia etc.

It's the popularity of the sport amongst these immigrant communities that leads to a number of British-descended Australians referring to football as ''wogball''. Nice.

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
its our fourth or fifth most popular sport and we still make it to the world cup, so well done to us.

Only because of the regional qualification. If you want to brag about qualifying ahead of countries such as Bahrain, Oman, Uzbekistan and North Korea, then good luck to you.

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
AFL is taken seriously by most people in OZ.
I could go into the merits of the game or mention the physical abilities that are needed far outweigh those of any other sport but instead Ill just say that we wouldnt want to be good or taken seriously at a sport that is dominated by pansies who regularly shed fake tears in order to get some attention, namely soccer.

Aussie Rules is the 3rd gayest sport known to mankind. Only American Football and male synchronised swimming are gayer.

I would define ''pansies'' as grown men prancing around in vests ( sorry, ''Guernseys'' ), while playing a ball game that would make a 10-year-old feel embarrassed.

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
I can understand as an englishmen why soccer is so important to you as you guys do suck at everything else (howd you guys do in the last olympics or the commonwealth games? oh thats right you got ur asses handed to you on a plate by us in pretty much everything

)

Britain attained 19 Gold Medals and 4th in the Medals table, only behind China, the USA and Russia.

The Commonwealth Games is always going to benefit Australia, because it consists of sports that only a handful of countries play to any great extent.

These are the sports that Australia ''dominate''. Rugby League, for example, is a very popular sport in Australia, and one in which they are successful at, yet only 3 or 4 other countries play this sport !

In truly global sports such as football and athletics, then Australia doesn't even cause a ripple.

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
And as for cricket, I personally cant stand it, 20/20 are ok but I would rather watch paint dry or even golf before a test match. Cricket you guys can have it, congratulations your good at the only sport thats more boring than soccer *pats the little englishman on the head*

Test cricket is the pinnacle of sport, you philistine.

It's amazing how many Aussies now claim that they don't like cricket, since England reclaimed the Ashes...

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
P.s no serious offence intended just havin some fun

Same here, mate.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes




LOL OK Ill play

soccer is taken seriously by a lot of Australians, especially those who are descended from immigrants who hail from soccer-mad countries, such as Italy, Greece, Serbia, Croatia etc. It's the popularity of the sport amongst these immigrant communities that leads to a number of British-descended Australians referring to soccer as ''wogball''. Nice.

Define alot?
1 million is alot, so is 100,000 even 10,000 is "alot" but when you look at the overall numbers of particiants compared to other sports its minimal. So when you look at Oz and NZ's potential pool of players compared to England its nothing, maybe 1/20th. The fact we got to the WC at all is a testament to our sporting superiority.
And you guys first coined the term "wog" nice

Only because of the regional qualification. If you want to brag about qualifying ahead of countries such as Bahrain, Oman, Uzbekistan and North Korea, then good luck to you.

I dont know enough or care enough to know if these teams are any good, sorry. But is it possible you just picked the worst 4 teams out of a pool of around 25? I know Japan and Korea are decent

Aussie Rules is the 3rd gayest sport known to mankind. Only American Football and male synchronised swimming are gayer. I would define ''pansies'' as grown men prancing around in vests ( sorry, ''Guernseys'' ), while playing a ball game that would make a 10-year-old feel embarrassed.

LMAO not gonna dignify that with a response, instead sit back and watch some highlights from the "masculine" sport of Soccer










No self respecting man would behave this way yet in soccer its the norm...hmmmmmmm




And finally indisputable proof that soccer is in fact gay



Now for comparison lets see a Mans sport






With the exception of the guys who were knocked out or had bones broken, they were all back on their feet playing the game without whinging or rolling around on the ground like little girls who had broken a nail.
(I have no idea whats with the French rap so dont ask LOL)

Britain attained 19 Gold Medals and 4th in the Medals table, only behind China, the USA and Russia.

Yeah.........well..........ummm........ahhhhhh.......well...... You guys still suck!!!!!

The Commonwealth Games is always going to benefit Australia, because it consists of sports that only a handful of countries play to any great extent

.

yeah but werent all those sports invented by Poms? either way WE ABSOLUTELY OWNED UR ASSES!!!!!!

In truly global sports such as soccer and athletics, then Australia doesn't even cause a ripple

Once again we dont care about soccer we dont take it seriously and only children who are soft or who have soft parents go near it as juniors, Athletics who wants to run and jump for no reason? You can have that as well.

Test cricket is the pinnacle of sport, you philistine. It's amazing how many Aussies now claim that they don't like cricket, since England reclaimed the Ashes...

LMAO I dont know if I would call doing nothing for 5 days the pinnacle of sport but I spose coming from a Pom you would say that as sitting around doing bugger all is practically a national past time

I eagerly await your retort

Originally posted by spacedonk
However in the case of the football (soccer) player, he is a role model for youngsters and as such to my mind it is part of his job description to uphold standards of decency in public.

Isn't that the job of parents?

How many low working class people can get an injunction?
if you brake the law you pay the prise.
If a judge set a precedent
ever one will use it to hid crimes.
all legal systems are corrupt.
criminals have more rights than the victims.
its not just this case it the ones to come!

These super injunctions are not just about sportspeople.

Sir Fred Goodwin RSBC's chief executive has one, which is now being questioned in Parliment.

From the Telegraph

John Hemming, the back bench Liberal Democrat MP, used parliamentary privilege to reveal the existence of the draconian super-injunction on the floor of the House of Commons last month.

Mr Hemming is now handing a copy of the super-injunction granted to Sir Fred Goodwin to the committee to decide whether the "private matters" he has been allowed to conceal behind the secrecy order had any bearing on the disastrous collapse of RBS, which has so far cost the taxpayer £45 billion to bail out.

Mr Hemming said: "It is important to determine whether the matters contained in the injunction affected corporate governance at the Royal Bank of Scotland at a time when the company was going down the pan.

Link


These injunctions have gone to far imho, we the UK are becoming a closed society for the rich and famous,
Why shouldn't someone who had an affair with a married celeb be able to talk about it, expecially when the man/woman has used their squeaky clean image to further their career.

I have no prob with i.e., a footballer having an afair, it happens in all walks of life....but if someone cannot take the strain of their actions they shouldn't play the game.....imho.

reply to post by dizzylizzy



You are right, the issue goes way beyond footballers having affairs. Fred Goodwin is one issue, for me the other more important factor is the super injunctions that we do NOT know about. They could be represented in many different areas and the whole idea is decidedly dangerous. I find the idea a court can say that something cannot be reported to exist an absolute infringement of our civil rights in the UK (such as they are).

chef - employment tribunal super injunction

Now an employment tribunal is subject to a super injunction! Is this really in the public interest?

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

 

And finally indisputable proof that soccer is in fact gay

What exactly are you trying to convey in that statement?

I would be grateful if you could elaborate.

Another aspect of the corrupt so-called judicial system which is actually a slavery-enforcement system ...
where money, status and connections and unspoken protect the wealthy minority and keep the 'serfs' in serfdom.

The judiciary's role is not to protect the people, it's there to protect the puppeteer's system and its cronies. This article is just one more blatant example of this.