Nothing matters anyway

A section to discuss matters not related to Chess in particular.
PeterTurland
Posts: 541
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 10:03 pm
Location: Leicester
Contact:

Re: Nothing matters anyway

Post by PeterTurland » Mon May 23, 2011 5:50 pm

David Sedgwick wrote:
Carl Hibbard wrote:
Jonathan Bryant wrote:Poor old Ryan Giggs. If the world had ended he'd have got away with it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog ... -live-blog

(link provided in case Carl or the mods have a super-injunction related fit)
It's made the BBC News so we are probably safe, unlike poor little Ryan :lol:
I'm not so sure. However, your site, your call.
Not quite so poor really, estimates I've read on the 'net, put his fortune at around £22 million.

The only shame is professional chess players are paid so poorly, as to the benefits to society in general, is football so much more beneficial than chess? Chess has been shown to teach young children manners, all I tend to see football teaching society, is loutishness and cynicism.

Paul McKeown
Posts: 3732
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hayes (Middx)

Re: Nothing matters anyway

Post by Paul McKeown » Mon May 23, 2011 5:59 pm

The Parliamentary Papers Act 1840, stemming from the Hansard affair, grants the press the right to publish extracts of Parliamentary proceedings, provided the report is bona fide and not malicious. This would include the words "Ryan Giggs".

I can't say I really approve of John Hemmings actions in this case, though. The judge had granted the injunction for reasons that he found compelling, including, as I understand it, the possibility that Giggs had been the victim of an attempted blackmail. The furore over this and some other cases is that the tabloid press wishes to continue the salacious tradition of "kiss and tell", whereby some pecunious halfwit falls into bed with a well known personage and then earns a small fortune for revealing (or inventing) the intimate details, essentially a form of pornography taken without consent. Personally I do believe in the principle of "privacy" concerning matters of sexual intimacy between consenting adults engaged in legally sanctioned behaviour. This is mere tittle-tattle, unlike the Trafigura case or the Fred Goodwin case.
Last edited by Paul McKeown on Mon May 23, 2011 6:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
John Upham
Posts: 7179
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:29 am
Location: Cove, Hampshire, England.
Contact:

Re: Nothing matters anyway

Post by John Upham » Mon May 23, 2011 6:04 pm

Until such times that the average European understands the basics of chess were stuck with this situation.

Football is very popular because it is trivially easy to understand. Anyone and everyone can be an expert and hold opinions. Some of those opinions have come from the individual themselves and the rest from real experts and copied to be reused in the pub.

If you don't support a football team (or pretend to) and have no interest in football, and worse still, are male, then you might need a SuperInjunction to protect yourself from ridicule!

When chess becomes mainstream in schools we will see a change for the better.

Compare the situation here with the situation behind the Iron curtain and in Soviet bloc states before the wall came down.
British Chess News : britishchessnews.com
Twitter: @BritishChess
Facebook: facebook.com/groups/britishchess :D

PeterTurland
Posts: 541
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 10:03 pm
Location: Leicester
Contact:

Re: Nothing matters anyway

Post by PeterTurland » Mon May 23, 2011 8:54 pm

John Upham wrote:
Compare the situation here with the situation behind the Iron curtain and in Soviet bloc states before the wall came down.
I agree with the other stuff you wrote John, but don't really understand your last comment, can you please expand.

User avatar
Matt Mackenzie
Posts: 5205
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:51 pm
Location: Millom, Cumbria

Re: Nothing matters anyway

Post by Matt Mackenzie » Mon May 23, 2011 9:06 pm

Football is, and was always, popular in Russia and the ex-Soviet bloc more generally, so it is hardly an "either/or" thing.
"Set up your attacks so that when the fire is out, it isn't out!" (H N Pillsbury)

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Nothing matters anyway

Post by Alex Holowczak » Mon May 23, 2011 10:38 pm

Paul McKeown wrote:I can't say I really approve of John Hemmings actions in this case, though. The judge had granted the injunction for reasons that he found compelling, including, as I understand it, the possibility that Giggs had been the victim of an attempted blackmail. The furore over this and some other cases is that the tabloid press wishes to continue the salacious tradition of "kiss and tell", whereby some pecunious halfwit falls into bed with a well known personage and then earns a small fortune for revealing (or inventing) the intimate details, essentially a form of pornography taken without consent. Personally I do believe in the principle of "privacy" concerning matters of sexual intimacy between consenting adults engaged in legally sanctioned behaviour. This is mere tittle-tattle, unlike the Trafigura case or the Fred Goodwin case.
My opinion on this is much the same as the following:
Eric Schmidt (Google CEO) wrote:If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place
I agree that this is tittle-tattle of no public concern, but really, Giggs only has himself to blame for putting himself in such a vulnerable situation in the first place.

Paul McKeown
Posts: 3732
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hayes (Middx)

Re: Nothing matters anyway

Post by Paul McKeown » Mon May 23, 2011 11:43 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:I agree that this is tittle-tattle of no public concern, but really, Giggs only has himself to blame for putting himself in such a vulnerable situation in the first place.
A certain Jewish philosopher once reprimanded the self righteous, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". We all do stuff we regret. It would be crushing for most people to have their dirty laundry published in The Sun or other highly regarded journal of record; I don't believe that just because one is in the public eye that one loses all rights to privacy.

The judge in this case believed Giggs perhaps to have been the victim of attempted blackmail. Undoubtedly the young woman involved will be given a king's ransom by the tabloids for her story. Is this how blackmailers - if true - are punished in our society? Furthermore the judge believed it necessary to protect Gigg's young children. Are their feelings now to be seen as immaterial?

Hemmings is abusing Parliamentary Privilege for purposes of self promotion.

Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 5820
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: Nothing matters anyway

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Tue May 24, 2011 8:14 am

"The judge in this case believed Giggs perhaps to have been the victim of attempted blackmail. Undoubtedly the young woman involved will be given a king's ransom by the tabloids for her story. Is this how blackmailers - if true - are punished in our society? Furthermore the judge believed it necessary to protect Gigg's young children. Are their feelings now to be seen as immaterial?

Hemmings is abusing Parliamentary Privilege for purposes of self promotion."

But the judge used the privilege of being in court to make the accusation of blackmail, even admitting he had no compelling evidence that it was true. So it could be argued that the judge is doing exactly what the MP did...
"Kevin was the arbiter and was very patient. " Nick Grey

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Nothing matters anyway

Post by Alex Holowczak » Tue May 24, 2011 8:18 am

Paul McKeown wrote:The Sun or other highly regarded journal of record
Since when was The Sun a "highly regarded journal of record"? :lol:
Paul McKeown wrote:The judge in this case believed Giggs perhaps to have been the victim of attempted blackmail. Undoubtedly the young woman involved will be given a king's ransom by the tabloids for her story. Is this how blackmailers - if true - are punished in our society? Furthermore the judge believed it necessary to protect Gigg's young children. Are their feelings now to be seen as immaterial?
These days, there's no privacy laws you can hope to enforce; the Internet is unmoderated and things will sooner or later find themselves on there. In my opinion, if Giggs' lawyers should have tried to get Thomas prosecuted under the attempted blackmail laws, rather than the super-injunction laws. I don't see why you'd award a super-injunction for attempted blackmail, when you can just prosecute for attempted blackmail in the first place. This makes me think the lawyers' arguments on that front were pretty thin.
Paul McKeown wrote:Hemmings is abusing Parliamentary Privilege for purposes of self promotion.
Is he? Hemmings has two "wives", or at least has two women with whom he's associated with. He doesn't care either way. He's not breaking any laws, and he's been the subject local radio interviews about it. Undoubtedly, the tabloids have noted this in the past, and perhaps tarnished his reputation within certain members of the public. So he's certainly not being a hypocrite here. I think his argument is that the privacy law is outdated, and a new one needs to be brought in. It'll be interesting to see what it is, and whether it can be enforced.

I remember one super-injunction that Prince Harry took out when on a mission with one of the armed forces, and the media kept it quiet. There were no leaks. This is a perfect example of a good super-injunction; it was of national interest not to reveal where our third in line to the throne was. By contrast, the personal affairs of Ryan Giggs isn't worth the same protection.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Nothing matters anyway

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue May 24, 2011 9:17 am

Alex Holowczak wrote:
Is he? Hemmings has two "wives", or at least has two women with whom he's associated with.
That's a cue for dodgy jokes about letting the cat out of the bag.

In my mind the point is that the legal profession shouldn't be allowed to keep names secret where the individuals are in the public eye. So whilst Giggs should have been able to try to prevent publication, a report of who was doing this should be allowed. If I've understood correctly, he was trying to project a public image as the second coming of Bobby Charlton whereas his behaviour in practice had more in common with a non-drinking George Best.

Jonathan Bryant
Posts: 3452
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: Nothing matters anyway

Post by Jonathan Bryant » Tue May 24, 2011 9:53 am

Paul McKeown wrote:The judge in this case believed Giggs perhaps to have been the victim of attempted blackmail.
I'm not sure the judge saying that did Giggsy any favours. Actually, I tend to think the game was inevitably lost from that point on.

If this was really about blackmail - and the boy Giggs himself made no such claim - then there is a legal system in place to deal with such matters. The fact it wasn't invoked rather suggests to me that there was a negligible (probably zero) chance of a successful prosecution.

Once the judge started talking about blackmail the balance rather shifted. Imogen Thomas became a woman accused of a crime who was unable to defend herself - clearly that's unfair whether the person is guilty or otherwise - and Giggsy rather looked like a bully.

Paul McKeown
Posts: 3732
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hayes (Middx)

Re: Nothing matters anyway

Post by Paul McKeown » Tue May 24, 2011 10:03 am

Alex Holowczak wrote:
Paul McKeown wrote:The Sun or other highly regarded journal of record
Since when was The Sun a "highly regarded journal of record"? :lol:
Irony, my dear boy, irony.
Alex Holowczak wrote:These days, there's no privacy laws you can hope to enforce
Not true, there was a body of law (albeit by application of tort and other roundabout routes) even before the ECHR was incorporated directly into British statute. So there is a body of law: you can hope to enforce it. And in most cases, court injunctions regarding privacy are obeyed to the letter, as editors have no taste for jug.
Alex Holowczak wrote:the Internet is unmoderated
The Internet is subject to the law in the same way as all other forms of publication. There may be technical difficulties, but the same principles apply. Try to distribute copyright materials for profit without permission of the owner - you will get away with it for a while, perhaps even years, but eventually you will summoned before the courts. Try selling contraband, counterfeit or stolen goods on eBay - again you may get away with it for a while, but eventually you will have your collar felt. Try publishing pornography which involves those who have not given their consent or those who cannot give informed consent: you will eventually be sentenced to time spent at Her Majesty's pleasure and will be placed on the Sex Offenders register. Try publishing a libel on the Internet; before long the owners of the site will take it down, either as part of their own moderation process, or under threat of litigation, or, ultimately by order of a court. You may find yourself liable to pay damages, too.

The same applies to privacy injunctions; there may be loads of speculation on the current identity and whereabouts of Maxine Carr, for example, but none of it would be given credence by any sane adult, and you can bet that if you did genuinely reveal her identity, Plod would be beating down your doors pronto and you would risk serving serious time. The Master of the Rolls made it quite clear: the Internet has no immunity and, although it took some years to defeat the child porn peddlers, using the example that he gave, the apparently anonymous nature of the Internet ultimately provided no protection from the law.

The difficulties in this case lay with the failure to apply for an injunction in the Scottish Court of Sesssions, the extraterritoriality of Twitter's business, the cupidity, schadenfreude and freudenschade of tabloid editors and their frustration at not being able to make a fast buck by gloating over someone else's troubles and the (imho) misplaced bloodymindedness of some MPs in thinking that this case had something to do with press freedom. Press freedom is necessary to hold authority to account and to curb the abuse of power; this involved nothing of the sort. Future applicants for privacy injunctions will, no doubt, apply to the Court of Sessions as well as to the High Court, tabloid editors will gnash their teeth in their public impotency, MPs will do nothing much (they fear the press and avoid legislation with regard to it).

Twitter will remain extra-territorial, but heaven help its owners, should they step onto soil under English jurisdiction. The Court's do not appreciate being thwarted and they will demand an answer to the question as to why information that the High Court required to be kept private under Engish jurisdiction was made public to those living under English jurisdiction. The technical means of barring access to IP addresses originating under English jurisdiction exists, why was it not applied?

Alex Holowczak wrote:and things will sooner or later find themselves on there.
True, but does any rational person pay most of the garbage on the Internet - or any other source of unsubstantiated gossip - any credence? The Dutch have a superb word for gossip, "ouwehoeren", and indeed only the gullible give any weight to the wisdom of old whores.
Alex Holowczak wrote:In my opinion, if Giggs' lawyers should have tried to get Thomas prosecuted under the attempted blackmail laws, rather than the super-injunction laws. I don't see why you'd award a super-injunction for attempted blackmail, when you can just prosecute for attempted blackmail in the first place.
The decision to prosecute is a competence vested with the public prosecutor.
Alex Holowczak wrote:
Paul McKeown wrote:Hemmings is abusing Parliamentary Privilege for purposes of self promotion.
Is he?
Perhaps I was unduly cynical as to his motives. He is misguided in my view and - more importantly - in the view of the Speaker of the Commons and many of his fellow MPs. He should be careful, Parliamentary Privilege is a blunt instrument of great force and should not be used carelessly. Parliamentary Privilege is, in theory, absolute, but so is the application of the Human Rights Act. It is a long established principle that Parliament does not interfere in the workings of the Courts and that Courts do not interfere in the workings of Parliament; parliamentarians set aside that principle at peril.
Alex Holowczak wrote:Hemmings has two "wives", or at least has two women with whom he's associated with. He doesn't care either way. He's not breaking any laws, and he's been the subject local radio interviews about it. Undoubtedly, the tabloids have noted this in the past, and perhaps tarnished his reputation within certain members of the public. So he's certainly not being a hypocrite here.
That is all his business, how he wishes to deal with it is his affair. How Ryan Giggs wishes to deal with his affairs, should likewise be a matter for Ryan Giggs, and for no third party.
Alex Holowczak wrote:By contrast, the personal affairs of Ryan Giggs isn't worth the same protection.
I disagree.

Paul McKeown
Posts: 3732
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hayes (Middx)

Re: Nothing matters anyway

Post by Paul McKeown » Tue May 24, 2011 10:13 am

Jonathan Bryant wrote:
Paul McKeown wrote:The judge in this case believed Giggs perhaps to have been the victim of attempted blackmail.
I'm not sure the judge saying that did Giggsy any favours. Actually, I tend to think the game was inevitably lost from that point on.

If this was really about blackmail - and the boy Giggs himself made no such claim - then there is a legal system in place to deal with such matters. The fact it wasn't invoked rather suggests to me that there was a negligible (probably zero) chance of a successful prosecution.

Once the judge started talking about blackmail the balance rather shifted. Imogen Thomas became a woman accused of a crime who was unable to defend herself - clearly that's unfair whether the person is guilty or otherwise - and Giggsy rather looked like a bully.
a) I'm not sure where you get this idea that Giggs made no such claim: it wasn't a figment of the judge's imagination
b) dealing with blackmail after the damage has been done is less useful than dealing with blackmail before damage has been done
c) an injunction is a tool used to prevent an (alleged) blackmailer from executing his or her threat

I have little sympathy with Imogen Thomas - or any of her breed. I doubt she had an affair with Giggs for any motive other than personal profit. You may think differently, but then I would think you naive.

I disagree with the need to "protect" her - she would not have been exposed to the allegation of blackmail if she had not sought to profit from her affair.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 21301
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Nothing matters anyway

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue May 24, 2011 10:15 am

Paul McKeown wrote:The technical means of barring access to IP addresses originating under English jurisdiction exists, why was it not applied?
I would imagine that the Courts felt that a method used by authoritarian leaders to silence opinion critical to their regime was not appropriate when applied to the affairs of a Manchester United footballer. Politicians in Britain like to claim that we live in a free society. Blocking half of Twitter isn't consistent with that claim.

Jonathan Bryant
Posts: 3452
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: Nothing matters anyway

Post by Jonathan Bryant » Tue May 24, 2011 10:26 am

Paul McKeown wrote: a) I'm not sure where you get this idea that Giggs made no such claim: it wasn't a figment of the judge's imagination
From the judge who acknowledged that Giggs hadn't used the term "blackmail".
Paul McKeown wrote:b) dealing with blackmail after the damage has been done is less useful than dealing with blackmail before damage has been done
c) an injunction is a tool used to prevent an (alleged) blackmailer from executing his or her threat
That's reasonable enough, but if no prosecution follows - or is even attempted - why this talk of "blackmail"?
Paul McKeown wrote:I have little sympathy with Imogen Thomas - or any of her breed. I doubt she had an affair with Giggs for any motive other than personal profit. You may think differently, but then I would think you naive.
I don't think differently. I have little sympathy with her either - save for the fact that a person accused by the legal system of a criminal act should have a chance to defend him or herself. Other than that, no, I too have little sympathy.

On the other hand, I have little sympathy for Giggs either. If you're going to dip your wick in a Big Brother contestant there are likely going to be consequences. Bleating about protecting your family once the press get wind of it strikes me as rather hypocritical.

Post Reply