One thing is certain, the footballer who took out the Super-Injunction to stop his affair being revealed, will be named and shamed. What is also certain is that the media, the tabloids in particular, will slaughter him and his reputation for daring to threaten their main source of material, i.e. women who sleep with footballers and then sell the story of their betrayal to the highest bidder.
There is a cause for concern that rich men can seek and obtain such injunctions, for whatever reason. But, is it really in the public interest for a newspaper to shatter the life of a footballer, because he has had an extra-marital affair? I can understand it if a celebrity has fronted an advertising campaign or given an interview extolling the virtues of fidelity in marriage and then being discovered shagging his housekeeper, as an example. But otherwise, how is such a disclosure in the public interest, other than as juicy gossip for public consumption? And we all love gossip. It sells newspapers and magazines and makes the working hour go quickly by.
Footballers are paid to kick a ball, not be paragons of virtue, which is a good thing considering the slimy behaviour of some of them. Whoever advised the premier footballer to try and gag Twitter, did not do him any favours. It would have been better had he been honest and contrite when his affair was first discovered, as it was always going to become public knowledge.
When it comes to a politician lying or cheating, a banker bonking when he should have been managing, or a priest preaching against sins of the flesh, then sneaking off to fiddle with the choirboy, of course it is then in the public interest for such behaviours to be exposed. The granting of injunctions in such cases would be an abuse of judicial power. But I can't help thinking that the media outrage over the granting of so-called super-injunctions, is more to do with limiting story sources, than a real desire for truth and justice.
Footballers are no longer paid to just kick a ball, they have massive endorsements based on their images. It is right and proper that these images be based on reality and the public and sponsors given the opportunity to choose whether to buy goods and services endorsed by that person, some people do not want to line the pockets of an adulterer, that should be their choice. Injunctions also suppress the ability of someone else being able to tell the truth (even if it is as they see it), no one should be gagged from the truth unless someone will be put in mortal danger because of it. Thirdly, if a football is a philandering idiot then both his wife and the rest of the female population deserve to know that underneath his superficial charm, he'll love you and leave you. If you are a naive girl and someone with a reputation for honesty pursues you, telling you he loves you and will leave his wife for you but actually he's done the same to 5 other girls but they're prevented from telling anyone about it - who is the injunction protecting and who is it damaging. Let alone the collateral damage of speculation being pointed at innocent people such as Jemima Khan. Plus the massive legal resources being used to cover up something as pitiful as an affair - this alone is a shameful use of public time and money. Injunctions and Superinjunctions should only be granted in matters of life or death or for a few days to allow the miscreant to put his tail firmly between his legs, man up to his wife and let her decide if she kicks him out or not.
ReplyDeleteOnly high profile people can afford an injunction. In this case of Rooney, his injunction was very costly.
ReplyDelete