Answering questions as to why he named the twitter footballer today, but not before John Hemming said
"When he sued twitter it was clear what he was doing. He was going after the ordinary people who have been gossiping about him on twitter. To prosecute someone for contempt of court is quite a serious step. It comes with an up to two year jail sentance."
"I have spoken to people of ordinary means who have received these injunctions. I have also spoken to people who faced jailing in secret hearings and who were subject to anonymity orders themselves. This is a really oppressive system.
"So on one side you have a footballer upset that people are gossiping about him and on the other side you have ordinary people facing the threats of a two year jail sentance. I think it is wrong that he has the power to do this, but at least if he is going to do this let him be held to account."
"Before he sued twitter there was no public interest in naming him. However, when his lawyers decided to go on a "search and destroy" against the ordinary people who gossip on twitter he had taken a step that should not be done anonymously."
"In Thailand they jail people for criticising the King and people here are up in arms. Here they threaten to jail people for criticising a footballer and the lawyers say I should not name the footballer."
ENDS
"When he sued twitter it was clear what he was doing. He was going after the ordinary people who have been gossiping about him on twitter. To prosecute someone for contempt of court is quite a serious step. It comes with an up to two year jail sentance."
"I have spoken to people of ordinary means who have received these injunctions. I have also spoken to people who faced jailing in secret hearings and who were subject to anonymity orders themselves. This is a really oppressive system.
"So on one side you have a footballer upset that people are gossiping about him and on the other side you have ordinary people facing the threats of a two year jail sentance. I think it is wrong that he has the power to do this, but at least if he is going to do this let him be held to account."
"Before he sued twitter there was no public interest in naming him. However, when his lawyers decided to go on a "search and destroy" against the ordinary people who gossip on twitter he had taken a step that should not be done anonymously."
"In Thailand they jail people for criticising the King and people here are up in arms. Here they threaten to jail people for criticising a footballer and the lawyers say I should not name the footballer."
ENDS
Comments
It is alleged that the 'affair' was in fact a monetary transaction and the judge was minded to maintain the injunction because there was a strong suspicion of blackmail.
In such cases the court seeks to frustrate the blackmailer or else it becomes an accessory to the crime.
All those on Twitter, in a Scottish newspaper and now one misguided MP should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for being so arrogant as to promote blackmail behind the pretence of protecting free expression.
Mr Hemming himself said that this was a trivial matter, if it is so trivial why could it not be left to rest until the circumstances were properly investigated?
very poor conduct, very arrogant and now you have exposed a 'trivial' issue to the media let us now witness the cauldron atmospheres of football grounds up and down the country. you are a clumsy man totally oblivious of what you may have instigated for the player and fans of Manchester United. This is a horrendous abuse of your ministerial privelege.
very poor conduct, very arrogant and now you have exposed a 'trivial' issue to the media let us now witness the cauldron atmospheres of football grounds up and down the country. you are a clumsy man totally oblivious of what you may have instigated for the player and fans of Manchester United. This is a horrendous abuse of your ministerial privelege.
He'll be happy to oblige, don't worry that he'll waste time worrying that he may be abusing parliamentary privilege to aid and abet blackmail.
What do the judges in their courtrooms know anyway? All that petty preoccupation with the law, testing evidence and all that petty nonsense.
Could you confirm whether you have access to all the information that has been put before the Judge in this case?
Completely off topic and out of the debate itself, you might want to check in with Metro (free (dare i call it) newspaper) who have quoted you saying (allegedly to them) that 'In Burma, they jail people for criticising the king and people here are up in arms. Here, they threaten to jail people for criticising a footballer.'
While I think your argument is valid, and it is a very good point you make - Burma does not have a king. I'm glad to see that you have posted the correct country that follows the lese-majeste law on your blog, but it did make you seem a bit ignorant during this mornings commute.