Mariyam Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 There are a number of malicious rumours being spread on the Internet (particularly twitter) about various footballers in the UK. Its all over the news. There are allegations that such sports stars are using the courts to prevent stories about their personal lives being revealed. In its purest form, a 'super-injunction' refers to a legal gagging order which not only prevents the media from reporting the details of a story, but also forbids mention of the existence of the injunction itself. A twitter user has released details of the cases despite the court order, but some allegations have turned out to be false. Surely, there must be something of the sort happening in cricket also.This leads us to the very important moral issue - why the hell are other people releasing completely scurrilous,defamatory and untrue stories about cricketers??? Surely that's our job on ICF! So I invite you to remain true to the Chit chat gossipmonger code by posting up completely untrue rumours you've heard, court cases that haven't happened, and stories you've made up about various cricketers.
Mariyam Posted May 30, 2011 Author Posted May 30, 2011 Here are some from my end: I heard that Team India took out a super-injunction on prohibiting any fast bowlers from entering the side. My sources tell me that CSK have taken out a super-injunction to prohibit the Srinivasan-BCCI-Dhonisundaram nexus from being exposed. Afridi had a season ball for breakfast. Feel free to add your own :icflove::icflove:
Guest Gunner Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 Damn, I thought this was a serious topic. I have been itching to talk about these super injunctions for some time now. :((
ravishingravi Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 Damn' date=' I thought this was a serious topic. I have been itching to talk about these super injunctions for some time now. :(([/quote'] Let it out Gunner
Guest Gunner Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 It is wrong for these super injuntions to be granted. I am happy that Max Mosley got pwned by the European Court of Justice at Strasbourg. :mad::mad:
Mariyam Posted May 30, 2011 Author Posted May 30, 2011 It is wrong for these super injuntions to be granted. I am happy that Max Mosley got pwned by the European Court of Justice at Strasbourg. :mad::mad: Looks like ICF has taken a super injunction on Gunner which forbids him from making on topic posts. :P Joking
Mariyam Posted May 30, 2011 Author Posted May 30, 2011 A super injunction forbids me from tell you guys that Sreesanth has being signed to star in Planet of the Apes part II. Riya Sen will be his co-star. Sreesanth will essay the role of the Ape commander, it is rumoured.
Guest Gunner Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 Looks like ICF has taken a super injunction on Gunner which forbids him from making on topic posts. :P Joking :hitler::hitler: You are a lawyer you should be taking aposition on this. :mad:
Holysmoke Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 Raina smokes like a chimney. Atleast when he is drunk. PS - That is true. So does Morkel.
ravishingravi Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 It is wrong for these super injuntions to be granted. I am happy that Max Mosley got pwned by the European Court of Justice at Strasbourg. :mad::mad: I dont have an opinion either way on this. But can you or Mariyan present some arguments as to why it is wrong or right for that matter. My feeling is that it is against freedom of speech at one level but on another level a man's life can be ruine by irresponsible or unconfirmed journalism especially if it has nothing to do with his "work" I am still guaging my opinion on it. I have to read up more. In India I know while an injunction is possible, it has rarely been imposed
Guest Gunner Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 I dont have an opinion either way on this. But can you or Mariyan present some arguments as to why it is wrong or right for that matter. My feeling is that it is against freedom of speech at one level but on another level a man's life can be ruine by irresponsible or unconfirmed journalism especially if it has nothing to do with his "work" I am still guaging my opinion on it. I have to read up more. In India I know while an injunction is possible, it has rarely been imposed Imagine this, a football club manager right now has a super injunction which prevents anyone from naming him as the person who had an affair with a married woman because it will affect HIS family life. What about the family life of the guy whose wife he slept with? Law canot promote something where there is no level playing field. In this country a super injunction is being virtually bought by the rich and mighty. You can't do this anywhere else in Europe. I am happy if a celebrity is granted injunction from magazines publishing his/her holiday photos or pics of his/her young children. But for any other reason, absolutely no.
Sachin=GOD Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 Ryan Giggs is the latest addition to this club :mad:
punjabi_khota Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 Ryan Giggs is the latest addition to this club :mad: wow talk about tubelight:hysterical:
Guest Gunner Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 Ryan Giggs is the latest addition to this club :mad: Yes but the bastard got pwned. Twitter Mahs'allah :hail::hail:
Sachin=GOD Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 Yes but the bastard got pwned. Twitter Mahs'allah :hail::hail: but his affair hasn't created as much news as those of Rooney or Ashley Cole.
ganeshran Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 Why do people care so much about affairs of sportspersons? :dontknow: Isnt it their personal matter..
Guest Gunner Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 Why do people care so much about affairs of sportspersons? :dontknow: Isnt it their personal matter.. It isn't as simple as that 1. It sets a precedent for more heinous cover ups like parties dressed up as a Nazi (Max Mosley) 2. Sex with an underage person (potentially a criminal offence) I could go on. The moment you stop giving out those injunctions people will lose interest in who slept with whom, you are actually spicing up the interest. Lastly in this day and age, super injunctions are meaningless (as it covers only England) and a website based in the US could give out this info. What is the point then of these injunctions when everyone knows?
Recommended Posts