• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Terry's been shagging Bridge's wife, allegedley.

Forums Unread posts
The pictures of John Terry crying in Moscow and getting that boot right in his face should be used to cheer up terminally ill patients

They are simply wonderful, life-affirming, heartwarming images

I'm half-tempted to get one of them framed
 
It is such a shame that his miss meant it was United who won the CL. If they had of been playing a foreign side and he missed like that then it would have to go down as one of the best moments of all time. He cried like a bitch.
 
The Guardian have gone with this now too...

High court overturns superinjunction granted to England captain John Terry

Use of gagging order will reignite debate on use of human rights legislation to stifle reporting in wake of Trafigura affair

Chris Tryhorn The Guardian, Saturday 30 January 2010

England captain John Terry emerged as the footballer who had obtained a gagging order preventing the publication of claims about his private life, after the high court overturned a superinjunction yesterday.

Lawyers for Terry won a high court injunction last Friday, having learned that the News of the World planned to write about his private life. Terry is alleged to have had an affair with an ex-girlfriend of his former Chelsea team-mate Wayne Bridge. Under the terms of the superinjunction, agreed on privacy grounds, newspapers were unable to reveal who had applied to stop the story.

The judge, Mr ­Justice Tugendhat, lifted the injunction yesterday. It follows the Trafigura affair in October, when the oil trading company tried to use a pre-existing superinjunction – which prevents even the existence of an injunction from being known – to stop the Guardian reporting a parliamentary question until the outcry forced Trafigura and their lawyers Carter-Ruck to back down.

In the Terry case, Tugendhat said: "I do not consider that an interim injunction is necessary or proportionate having regard to the level of gravity of the interference with the private life of the applicant that would occur in the event that there is a publication of the fact of the relationship, or that [the applicant] can rely in this case on the interference with the private life of anyone else."."

Although the judge did not name Terry in his order he was the player who made the application.

And while the injunction did not cite a specific paper, the judge said the evidence named News Group Newspapers (NGN), the publisher of the News of the World.

Tom Crone, News of the World legal manager, said later: "We welcome Mr Justice Tugendhat's decision as a long overdue breath of fresh air and common sense coming out of the privacy courts. Over recent years, there has been more prior restraint on freedom of speech in Britain than in any other democratic country in the world.

"Gagging orders like the one sought by John Terry have been granted to numerous other Premier League footballers and assorted celebrities. Hopefully today's victory by the News of the World will lead to a fundamental reassessment of our ­draconian privacy laws.

"The British public's right to know has been the victim of this legal process. Hopefully that will now change."

The judge criticised Terry's lawyers, Schillings, for not giving newspapers notice of the action they were taking.

"Notice has not been given to any ­newspaper when it should have been, and, as a result, I have not had the benefit of arguments in opposition to the application, which might have assisted me to be satisfied of the matters of which I am not satisfied," he said.

He rejected arguments that they had not notified anyone about the application because their client did not know of any media organisation with a "specific interest in the story".

"The evidence shows that NGN were intending to publish a story about [the applicant] on the Sunday ... In my judgment the interest that NGN did show in publishing a story meant that they should have been given notice."

He also mentioned a letter from the Guardian that "illustrates the ­importance of open justice" in just such a case.

The use of the superinjunction is likely to reignite the debate about the use of human rights laws by public figures to prevent stories being placed into the public domain. Critics say several rulings based on the 1998 Human Rights Act have effectively created a privacy law in the UK, which has always shied away from legislation to protect the rich and powerful.

The issue was highlighted last October, when oil trading company Trafigura which prevented the Guardian from reporting a parliamentary question.

That prompted an online outcry, particularly on Twitter, and Trafigura's law firm Carter-Ruck werewas forced to drop the injunction. In a landmark case in 2008, high court judge Mr Justice Eady ruled that the News of the World had breached the privacy of Formula One boss Max Mosley. The paper had to pay damages.

The justice secretary, Jack Straw, announced this week the make-up of the panel to investigate reform of libel law, with members including Sunday Times editor John Witherow and Andrew Stephenson, a Carter-Ruck partner.
Click to expand...
 
These super injuctions are pretty scary things. Papers can't even report that the injuction has been granted.

Carter Ruck seem to be responsible for lots of them. And to veer off at a tangent, guess which set of famous parents of a missing daughter have used Carter Ruck to obtain a super injuction against some element of the media?
 
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=38700.msg1046008#msg1046008 date=1264855756]
These super injuctions are pretty scary things. Papers can't even report that the injuction has been granted.

Carter Ruck seem to be responsible for lots of them. And to veer off at a tangent, guess which set of famous parents of a missing daughter have used Carter Ruck to obtain a super injuction against some element of the media?

[/quote]

I'm assuming that was lifted?
 
Brooker on them not so long ago.

If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one to hear it, can Carter-Ruck ban all mention of the sound?

Super-injunctions raise a worrying question: what else don't we know? Hitler could be alive, and in negotiations to present the Radio 1 breakfast show

*
Comments (219)
* Buzz up!
* Digg it

* Charlie Brooker
*
o Charlie Brooker
o The Guardian, Monday 19 October 2009
o Article history

The following correction was printed in the Guardian's Corrections and clarifications column, Tuesday 20 October 2009

The column below stated that lawyers representing Trafigura – the oil-trading company involved in a toxic waste dumping scandal in west Africa – had secured a fresh injunction to ban reporting of a parliamentary question on the subject. This was inaccurate: rather, the company's lawyers, the firm of Carter-Ruck, claimed that an existing injunction prevented reporting of a parliamentary question.

As you may have noticed, there was a bit of a kerfuffle last week involving this newspaper, the House of Commons, the oil-trading company Trafigura, law firm Carter-Ruck, Private Eye, toxic waste, Twitter, and a mysterious alien entity known as a "super-injunction". What may have struck anyone with zero interest in media law or basic human rights as a bafflingly dry story was in fact a significant victory for freedom of speech. The irony is that, having won the freedom to explain what happened, "explaining what happened" stretches language itself to its limit, thanks to the presence of the aforementioned "super-injunction" – a legal weapon so profoundly confusing it has the power to warp reality itself.

A super-injunction is an injunction that prevents you from telling anyone that an injunction exists. If taking out a regular injunction is like putting a gag round someone's mouth, whipping out a super-injunction is the equivalent of putting a gag round someone's mouth, then pulling a bag over their head, tying them to a chair and stealing their phone so they can't text for help. Or to put it another way: if a tree lands in the forest and there's no one there to hear it, does it make a sound? No one knows, because thanks to a super-injunction we're not allowed to report the existence of the forest.

Super-injunctions are supposed to protect the privacy of an individual. Let's assume, entirely hypothetically, that someone steals a laptop containing mucky candid photographs of Rodney Bewes and tries to flog them to the tabloids. Before they can print them, an understandably furious Bewes slaps the papers with an injunction preventing publication. Now, at this point it would still be possible for a paper to run a story explaining that Bewes was taking legal action to prevent the publication of racy private pictures – which is still extremely embarrassing for poor Bewes, a much-loved and respected comic actor who doesn't deserve this kind of leering intrusion, even in a hypothetical scenario. Wish I'd picked Kelvin MacKenzie instead, to be honest.

Anyway, all is not lost if at this point Bewes takes out a super-injunction preventing anyone from alluding to the details of the first injunction. This makes the story effectively disappear altogether, thus maintaining Bewes's dignity, not to mention the sanity of the picture desk. The very most the press can do is run a nonsensical story saying: "There's something we're not allowed to tell you, but we can't tell you why."

That's effectively what the Guardian did last week, except that there was no beloved actor, but rather a whopping great multinational company accused of dumping toxic waste off the Ivory Coast, following which a lot of people got rather sick and more than a little upset. In an apparent bid to save face, the company instructed its lawyers (Carter-Ruck) to sail up and down the media coastline, knowingly dumping toxic injunctions. Eventually they went completely berserk and issued a super-injunction preventing the Guardian from reporting a parliamentary question about one of their previous super-injunctions. This was too much for common sense or modern technology to bear. Private Eye printed the question, the Twittersphere went bonkers; soon everyone knew about it, and Trafigura's name was toxic mud. In terms of corporate PR, it was about as effective as appearing on the GMTV sofa to carve your brand name on to the face of a live baby.

Anyway, the Trafigura debacle is one of the very few occasions where the cloaking device of the super-injunction has actually malfunctioned, leaving the hovering mothership visible, which raises a worrying question: what else don't we know about? Literally anything could be going on. Like the mysterious "dark matter" that scientists believe makes up a huge percentage of the universe, an entire alternative reality could be thriving just over our shoulders. Dean Gaffney might be made of staples. Hitler could be alive and well and currently in negotiations to present the Radio 1 breakfast show. Kellogg's could be raising an army of the damned and declaring war on Norwich. How many other "invisible" stories are out there, shrouded by thick legal mist?

God knows. But he's not allowed to tell you.

And never mind super-injunctions – are there other kinds of injunction we don't know about? If you slap a super-injunction on top of another super-injunction, do you get a "hyper-injunction" that makes it illegal to even think about protesting? Can someone get an injunction that prevents your eyes from accurately telling your brain what they're looking at, so half your field of vision is pixelated out? Can you ban reporters from using the alphabet? Come to think of it, are there any additional letters of the alphabet we're not allowed to know about? There could be hundreds. Millions.

What worries me is that all this meddlesome injunctioneering could soon threaten the fabric of reason itself, causing a black hole of logic that sucks everything in the universe through to neverwhere. For the sake of all mankind, I sincerely hope that in future, any corporations trying to cover something up would do the decent thing and simply start strangling journalists and bombing their offices. Same results, less paperwork. Dead men tell no tales. And even if they try, Carter-Ruck can probably issue a gagging order that follows them into the afterlife and kicks their larynx off its hinges.
Click to expand...
 
The ESPN coverage of Burnley v Chelsea hasn't shied away from this subject, ie, should he keep the England armband etc ?

I am fucking LOVING this !
 
Why not.

jtcrysq1.jpg
 
I heard from a friend last night that the reason Van Nistle-horse left the Scum while still scoring aplenty was that he was hanging out of Scholes' missus. Allegedly. Just imagine finding your missus had been boffed by a horse.
 
[quote author=Loch Ness Monster link=topic=38700.msg1046393#msg1046393 date=1264876042]
I heard from a friend last night that the reason Van Nistle-horse left the Scum while still scoring aplenty was that he was hanging out of Scholes' missus. Allegedly. Just imagine finding your missus had been boffed by a horse.
[/quote] And what the after affects do..
 
[quote author=Loch Ness Monster link=topic=38700.msg1046393#msg1046393 date=1264876042]
I heard from a friend last night that the reason Van Nistle-horse left the Scum while still scoring aplenty was that he was hanging out of Scholes' missus. Allegedly. Just imagine finding your missus had been boffed by a horse.
[/quote]

As apposed to a ginner mono-brow....
 
Why would any of this affect his game?

Terry is apocalyptically stupid and unaware

Possibly the most disgusting example of a modern-day footballer EVAH
 
Re: Terry's been shagging Bridge's wife, apparently

[quote author=Bradley link=topic=38700.msg1045679#msg1045679 date=1264785473]
Crikey!

However there is a bigger picture here.

I have selected JT as the captain of my fantasy football team this week as Chelsea have 2 games.

But will he play, if he does will his mind not be on the job.

I have some MASSIVE decisions to make....
[/quote]

You'll be pleased to know that I'm sticking with him in this difficult time.

****

He's an utter cunt and all this will probable do his perception of his own public image no harm. Any publicity is good publicity and all that.
 
[quote author=Bradley link=topic=38700.msg1046448#msg1046448 date=1264881005]
[quote author=Bradley link=topic=38700.msg1045679#msg1045679 date=1264785473]
Crikey!

However there is a bigger picture here.

I have selected JT as the captain of my fantasy football team this week as Chelsea have 2 games.

But will he play, if he does will his mind not be on the job.

I have some MASSIVE decisions to make....
[/quote]

You'll be pleased to know that I'm sticking with him in this difficult time.

****

He's an utter cunt and all this will probable do his perception of his own public image no harm. Any publicity is good publicity and all that.
[/quote]

Not when you're being sponsored hundreds of thousands of quid based on your supposed squeaky-clean, family-man image, it's not.
 
Just did a bit of wiki searching, he was dad of the year 2009. So that's fucked.

His sponsors are:

Umbro
Samsung
Nationwide
Swedish betting company Svenska Spel
Pro Evolution Soccer 6

Could loss a few quid on those, but to be fair cash won't be a real concern for him. Not when he is Mega Chav Man and Tim Lovejoy hoists him to the heavens and parades Terry through the streets of London town.
 
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=38700.msg1046008#msg1046008 date=1264855756]
These super injuctions are pretty scary things. Papers can't even report that the injuction has been granted.

Carter Ruck seem to be responsible for lots of them. And to veer off at a tangent, guess which set of famous parents of a missing daughter have used Carter Ruck to obtain a super injuction against some element of the media?

[/quote]


i imagine it would have infringed their human rights if those newpapers reported convincing evidence of them concealing their daughters cadaver
 
[quote author=Loch Ness Monster link=topic=38700.msg1046393#msg1046393 date=1264876042]
I heard from a friend last night that the reason Van Nistle-horse left the Scum while still scoring aplenty was that he was hanging out of Scholes' missus. Allegedly. Just imagine finding your missus had been boffed by a horse.
[/quote]Christ. You have to wonder what floats Mrs Scholes boat.

horse.jpg
 
its excellent that this information has been released..

Im still bitter about that incident against spurs... Didnt he 'hurt' his knee shortly afterwards and was on the sidelines for several months. He clearly said something racist from the reaction of the ref, the spurs players and the fact he walked straight off the pitch without any argument.
Im sure he faced a ban by the FA but this was disguised as an inhouse injury..

I can understand in most circumstances how situations like this are better kept out of the public forum... but this guy is England Captain and as such any allegations against him should be reported and effect his status as captain.

I doubt any other country would allow for a captain to have such a questionable history
 
[quote author=gareth_thomas link=topic=38700.msg1046612#msg1046612 date=1264922684]

I doubt any other country would allow for a captain to have such a questionable history

[/quote]

Is that a joke? Maradona was still captain of Argentina when he was snorting coke off the buttocks of 12-year-old prostitutes.
 
What is this moral brow beating here in SCM or in the world of football, not least led by the unmentionable tabloid is at the bottom of moral sump pit?

Hypocrites!
 
[quote author=TheBunnyman link=topic=38700.msg1046616#msg1046616 date=1264925558]
[quote author=gareth_thomas link=topic=38700.msg1046612#msg1046612 date=1264922684]

I doubt any other country would allow for a captain to have such a questionable history

[/quote]

Is that a joke? Maradona was still captain of Argentina when he was snorting coke off the buttocks of 12-year-old prostitutes.

[/quote]

Best player in the world ever or...... John Terry
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom