Who is tse elp

The Premier League season ended this weekend, with some players celebrating by bringing their families onto the pitch. That's probably not what another player, known as 'TSE', did. He's reported by the BBC to be involved in legal action against a tweeting journalist, over an affair with someone known only as 'ELP'. Regardless of whether you think the tawdry antics of vaguely famous folk are actually worth reporting, you have to laugh at the hubris of miscreants spending a small fortune on a super-injunction only to be circumvented by every blog, tweet and website on the Internet.

It's truly poetic justice -- a super-injunction is so effective at gagging the press because it bans even referring to the fact there is an injunction, but it's the very word 'super-injunction' that reveals CTB's real name when typed into Google or Twitter.

On the other hand, legal experts have argued that the unfettered nature of the Web threatens fair trials , as juries and witnesses can be exposed to speculation and information devoid of context. Further, if people are found to be innocent of crimes or indiscretions, searching the Web will continue to besmirch their name, with old stories reporting the original allegations.

So far in , there have been approximately 17 privacy injunction cases in England. They represent an interesting array of cases: some have concerned emails sent to the wrong recipient with confidential information held within, another relates to blackmail threats sent from anonymous Twitter accounts.

Altogether however, only three cases whose judgements have been published to date actually concern sportsmen. The first, involving Imogen Thomas, is one everybody knows about. The third, TSE and ELP v News Group the proprietors of the Sun and the News of the World newspapers , concerns a married footballer and the women he had an affair with both seeking to stop details of their relationship being published. Therefore, any sportsman who decides, for whatever reason, not to invoke their privacy rights is effectively placing a target on their heads and asking newspapers to go out and dig out as much dirt on them as they can.

Another interesting aspect to this entire debate is the role that newspapers play in the legal proceedings. No arguments were put forward whatsoever by the newspaper that publishing details of the affair was in the public interest. Such words might have a lot more meaning if the newspaper actually fought to justify publication of the story.

The point has also been made that if newspapers continue to publish silhouettes of that resemble the person taking out the injunction, or placing pictures of them on the same page as the injunction story, more genuine super-injunctions will have to be granted, the draconian-type injunctions where their very existence cannot be reported. Held: Tugendhat J accepted the proposition. Cited — G and G v Wikimedia Foundation Inc QBD 2-Dec The claimants sought an order that the defendants, an internet company in Florida, should disclose the IP address of a registered user of the site with a view to identifying the user and pursuing an action against him or her.

Held: Tugendhat J. Buy Me a Coffee. Skip to content The claimants had obtained an injunction preventing publication of details of their private lives and against being publicly named. You forego some rights to privacy simply by living in society, as you become richer, more powerful and more high profile one of the prices that you will pay is that people will be more interested in you.

In reply to Postmanpat: Giles Coren is the TV personality - off the back of his foodie programs with Sue what's-her-name. He tweeted after an evening over-imbibing at Michael winner's place. Professor Bunsen 24 May In reply to Rob Exile Ward and winhill: Am I the only person that is a little bit concerned that the Article 8 whether it be a right to respect privacy or a right to privacy itself is now to be judged by a bunch of internet users who appear to consider that without knowing any of the facts feel that it is their anonymous right to determine who should be afforded the protection of article 8, and what they should be allowed to be protected from.

Clearly any misguided belief that courts in possession of the facts might be allowed to make such finely balanced judgements was naive. To be honest a cursory glance through UKC makes it obvious that the citizens of the internet ate always right about everything. In reply to fxceltic: I'd be well chuffed if I bagged Imogen Thomas! Good effort Giggsy! In reply to elsewhere: Totally agree that it doesn't make breaches of privacy right.

I suggest that where the injunction is in respect of an article 8 right, there nay be some wider European remedy available for the breach, though it appears the AG isn't considering action in Scotland. As I argued on a previous thread - given that Twitter amongst others, is based in the Usa and operates under us law are we happy that our rights to privacy are now effectively in the hands of american legislation?

In reply to elsewhere: Isn't it great that everyone us so keen to have their privacy and rights to free speech regulated by America. Any other rights we should hand over as well? In reply to fxceltic: and quite a cool parody: youtube. In reply to off-duty: How would you propose preventing somebody in the US publishing information that was subject to an injuction in the UK?

Haighy 24 May He objected to the publication on the grounds that it was a defence of his privacy. It was also found that the women were not prostitutes and that he did not at least in the event in question have sex with them.

That's not what you said earlier. You seemed then to think that English law should have no law of privacy. Whether injunctions should prohibit their own reporting is another matter. Actually they very rarely do - certainly not in the Giggs case. They prohibited naming the claimant, which is obviously correct, once you accept that they're entitled to their privacy.

And your children. They're not, are they? People within the jurisdiction who post on Twitter can find themselves getting pursued. That's the whole point of Hemming's frothing at the mouth. It's strange that absolutely no-one has yet said anything intelligent or interesting about this affair, not here, not Lords Neuberger and Judge, not anywhere. Personally I don't see any alternative but for a salutary prison sentence or two, but given as I say that the Sun's proposed publication is in fact illegal , what do people actually think should be done?

I get the impression that the noble Lords are at something of a loss, and Cameron and Co obviously have no idea at all. It's absolutely bizarre that we have minor MPs working themselves up into a frenzy about defending democracy and freedom of speech and so forth and begging to go to prison, all in reality to defend the continuation of kiss-and-tells and blackmail by harlots and gutter journalists.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously: I pretty much agree with you. My point about America is that in order to prosecute a Twitter user, even one as well known as the one that can't be named, the cps will want a load of info from twitter which they are likely to need to jump through hoops of american legislation to get.

Given that the majority of these social media sites are based in the US then any efforts to silence them will have to go through US courts. Obviously should a UK citizen decide to use his newly won freedom of speech to post something from the UK that is against american law it can be "censored" by us courts and he can be prosecuted. What can be done? Perhaps streamlining the procedure to get info from American sites?

I agree that a couple of salutary two year sentences might clarify the minds if those who think they have some vague right to anonymous free speech with no responsibility to stand up for their words. Rob Exile Ward 25 May In reply to johncoxmysteriously: 'It's strange that absolutely no-one has yet said anything intelligent or interesting about this affair,' that's just a synonym for 'nothing I agree with. In reply to johncoxmysteriously: 'And your children. There's precedents to show that that is the case.

KevinD 25 May In reply to off-duty: Listen to yourselves - both you and JCM believe that the law can solve any issue. Well, it can't. We couldn't even get the Yanks to stop funding the IRA. Our 'prurient' interest in the rich and famous may well tap into some of our deepest and most instinctive human characteristics - do you think cavemen weren't gossipping about their leaders behind their backs?

Do you think a crowd has EVER walked past an accident without gawping? Do you think you can enforceably legislate against that?

There's an easy answer if you want privacy. Be low profile. Do nothing that you wouldn't want your kids hearing about. Either will do. Banned User 77 25 May In reply to MG: But it does, 80 stand, only one has been breached. I find it straneg that an MP's gossip is protected but not the footballers You only have to google who you think is involved and you'll get the rest.. The MP was a disgrace, total abuse of his position and using that honorable excuse was just rubbish.

Conf 2 25 May In reply to fxceltic: Freeeeeeeedooommmmmmmmmmm. In reply to dissonance: I bet that's normal. Why take out an injunction unless it's to mean something? But I think you're slightly missing my point, which was that children also have a right to respect for their privacy and family life, and when stories about Dad was doing this or that are in the paper, they aren't getting it.

As to nothing intelligent being said meaning nothing I agree with, every commentary I've seen has been limited to 'the law's making itself look stupid' or 'we shouldn't have a privacy law anyway'. I haven't seen any suggestion at all as to how the law should now go about enforcing the privacy rights which Parliament incorporated into our law thirteen years ago, bearing in mind the irresponsibility of MPs and the nature of internet gossip sites.

Honestly, the drivel you people come out with. Why do think the ECHR includes a right to privacy, if not to stop the publication of tittle-tattle? Have you actually read Eady's judgment? It's not in dispute that Ms T wanted money. Her point was that it wasn't blackmail but a perfectly normal commercial arrangement. The same position as the Screws adopted in the Mosley case when it was criticised for threatening the witnesses with exposure which incidentally was a threat it carried out.

One of the women not only lost her job but also saw her husband lose his job as a result. If only the newspapers would obey privacy laws we'd all be a lot better off, eh? Then , I thought she admitted that and that text messages were produced to show that?

Mike Highbury 25 May In reply to Tyler: I think he'd just rather it went away and thought this was more likely. A bribery case would be far more damaging to both. It would be compelling evidence of blackmail whether or not he had slept with her. Beggars belief. Come on, Tyler, honestly. Move into the real world for a moment. What do you think would happen if Giggs had gone to the police? And stop falling for the press propaganda; this was not a superinjunction, it was one as is invariably the case in privacy cases , where the press were prevented from reporting the name of the claimant.

A moment's thought will show you why that's a good idea. I really don't know what to say to that. I thought that was the traditional way the law worked? Oh FFS man don't be such a fool. Blackmail trials are very, very rare for the obvious reason that if you go to the police whatever it is you want kept private comes out.

This has been the case for centuries. Sending people to prison doesn't stop publication, which is the aim. It wouldn't be effective in the least. Although I don't disagree that asking Twitter for details of its anonymous users probably wasn't a very good idea. Try just turning off your prejudices though and imagining a world in which a privacy law does exist and people have the right to have affairs without being invited to enter into 'perfectly normal commercial arrangements' by the other party to prevent their exposure.

Now suppose that it were true as I imagine it us that the Sun deliberately set up a number of Twitter accounts to spread this stuff, with a view to getting the information into the public domain in order that they could publish it later.

Would you not think it desirable leaving practicality on one side that Twitter should be obliged to hand over the relevant information to enable the Sun to be uncovered?