A newspaper has broken ranks and published a barely concealed picture of the footballer whom it claims is at the centre on an injunction.
The decision by the Sunday Herald, published in Scotland, led to yet another surge on Twitter with the player's name at one point being mentioned every second.
It was after the married star, who is said to have had a 'sexual relationship' with Big Brother's Imogen Thomas, took legal advice from his lawyers Schillings to launch proceedings against Twitter and 'persons unknown' that the frenzy around naming him took off with a vengeance.
Imogen Thomas meets up with friends for lunch in London today. Attempts to gag discussion of the footballer's alleged extramarital affair with Miss Thomas appear doomed to failure
Within 24 hours of the player launching the new legal challenge, more than 12,000 tweets about him and the relationship appeared on the site. Here are some of them with the player's name blacked out
As football games kicked off around the country this afternoon more pressure was piled on the Premier League player - referred to as CTB in court documents - as fans made jokey chants about the issue.
Attempts to gag discussion of his alleged extramarital affair with Miss Thomas appear doomed to failure after the total of messages about the star posted on Twitter hit 30,000.
Within 24 hours of the player launching the new challenge, more than 12,000 tweets about him and the relationship appeared on the site.
Miss Thomas was named alongside the footballer in more than 6,000. Last night tweets about the affair were being posted at a rate of 900 every hour. The Mail on Sunday uncovered the data using a search engine designed to scour for key words on social networking sites.
Another website charting trends in Twitter comments, Trendistic.com, showed tweets mentioning the footballer spiked dramatically twice during the past 30 days, once after news of an injunction against Miss Thomas first broke and again in the hours following the emergence of the court action on Friday.
Several celebrities, including XXXX XXXXXX, the broadcaster, author and XXXX XX XXXXXX columnist, XXX XXXXX, the singer, and the comedians XXXX XXXXXXX and XXX XXXX are among those who posted tweets at the weekend which either identified the star in connection to the relationship or heavily hinted at his involvement.
The attempt to silence Twitter may turn into an own goal because several of the celebrity tweeters have followings which far exceed the circulations of some of the newspapers the star is trying to silence.
Alan Stevens, who advises businesses on social media, said the attempt to silence Twitter was like ‘pouring petrol on the flames’.
He said: ‘It is like that famous scene in Spartacus where everyone puts their hand up and claims to be the hero of the piece.
Tweeters: A TV star, a pop singer, an author and a comedian cannot be identified under judge's orders
‘Everyone on Twitter is now queuing up to name that footballer.
‘There are so many people out there talking about it, you might as well say you can’t talk on the phone or in the pub about something.’
In a further blow for the player the fact that he is suing Twitter was added to his entry on Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia used by more than 400 million people. XXXXXX, the broadcaster, who has more than 700,000 followers, was one of the first to tweet about the star. In his message, which appeared shortly after the second legal action was launched, he tweeted: ‘Tip to XXXX XXXXX – Get a new lawyer.’
But in a subsequent message to a Premier League footballer, who has more than a million followers on Twitter, he wrote: ‘Talking of C cups, is Imogen Thomas on the team bus tomorrow?’
The footballer replied: ‘Don’t ruin it all by mentioning her name on my time line. Please never met her and don’t know her.’ Several tweeters had no idea that the player was involved in the affair or even had a privacy injunction until Saturday.
International pop singer XXX XXXXX began his morning yesterday by asking his 96,000 followers: ‘Footballer, Twitter, injunction? What is going on folks?’
The censored Twitter messages of an international TV star, a pop singer, an author and a comedian
Within hours the singer had tweeted the player’s name.
The openly gay singer wrote: ‘XXXX XXXXX and myself have been at it for 14 years and we have had Arnie’s kid.’
He later added the player’s name to the end of a ‘hashtag’ –- a link to a collection of tweets about the star –- called SavingXXXX’sPrivates.
By mid-afternoon yesterday the star had become a ‘trend’ in several countries including the UK, meaning he was one of the most talked about subjects of the day. He was also trending in Ireland and the United Arab Emirates.
Among tweeters in London, Birmingham, Dublin, Glasgow and Manchester the player was among the top ten most discussed subjects of the day.
Many of the tweets which appeared yesterday heaped ridicule on him.
Those having a laugh at the player’s expense included XXXX XXXXXXX’s son XXXXX and his brother XXXXX.
Tweeters: The attempt to silence Twitter might turn into an own goal as several of the celebrity tweeters have huge followings which far exceed the circulations of some of the newspapers the star is trying to silence
Both men tweeted: XXXX XXXXX to sue Twitter. I can’t Imogen why.
Other tweeters wrote XXXX XXXXX and ‘Imogen that lads’.
XXXX XXXXX, the author and broadcaster joked: ‘In other news, XXXX XXXXX has decided to sue “the grapevine”.’ and comedian XXXX XXXXXXX had fun with the phrase CTB, which is the name used by the player on the privacy injunction.
Fellow comic XXX XXXX initially tweeted: ‘Dear XXXX XXXXX stop being a ****.’
In a subsequent message he wrote: ‘When I mentioned XXXXX in my last tweet I in know way meant XXXX XXXXX – why would I mention him anyway.’
Plenty had no idea that the star had taken out a privacy injunction until he launched his legal action against Twitter. One wrote: ‘Oh my God his name is everywhere.’ Another wrote ‘Woah’ and a third said the star had gone down in their estimation.
One tweeted: ‘Never been so totally disappointed in a person who I used to see as an inspiration as I’ve been disappointed by XXXX XXXXX.’
Several simply posted the star’s name and urged him to sue them now. One angry fan advised the player to ‘give up and come clean now’.
Several tweeters questioned whether the action was viable given that Twitter is an American firm based in San Francisco and beyond the reach of British courts.
Paul Staines, who writes under the pseudonym Guido Fawkes, tweeted: ‘Sue who in the UK courts? Twitter has no representation or property in the UK courts.’
A leading US lawyer last night agreed that the attempt to sue Twitter was most likely in breach of the First Amendment which guarantees the right to free speech.
Marc Rupp said: ‘This case strikes me quite frankly as ridiculous. He really doesn’t have a leg to stand on.’
Half of public already know star’s name...
By Lara Gould
His identity is hidden behind the country’s most talked about super-injunction, but is easily revealed by a simple trawl of the internet.
Yesterday the multi-millionaire Premier League footballer who had an affair with reality TV star Imogen Thomas launched legal action against social networking site Twitter for allowing his name to leak out, effectively breaching his gagging order.
But how many people already know who he is?
Revealed: In a Mail on Sunday poll 80 out of 35 people asked at random could name the player
The Mail on Sunday took to the streets of Britain to find out how effective the Premier League star’s super-injunction has been at keeping his name hidden.
We asked a cross-section of the population in London, Manchester, Exeter and Birmingham if they knew the identity of the footballer.
Of the 80 people polled at random, 35 could name the player – almost half of those polled – proving the futility of attempting to put a legal lock on information.
In Manchester, 12 of the 20 asked – 60 per cent of the people approached – correctly identified the player.
Trainee manager Charlotte Dowey, 20, from New Moston, Manchester, said she had read about the player’s affair on Twitter, while history student Luke Kelly 21, said: ‘I thought everyone knew.’
Julie Kennedy, 41, who had travelled to Manchester from Northampton with her husband Mark to watch Manchester United’s match against Blackpool, said: ‘I didn’t even know it was a secret. Everyone seems to know it’s XXXX.’
In Birmingham, eight of the 20 people questioned – 40 per cent – knew the star’s name.
Football fan Charlie Flannigan named the player without hesitation and said: ‘Everyone knows. It’s well and truly out of the bag. Things get around and you can’t keep them secret even if you have all that money.’
Abbey Quinlan, 22, didn’t know the player but said his name should be made public: ‘If he doesn’t want it known that he has had an affair, he shouldn’t have had one in the first place. It is his fault.’
In Exeter six of the 20 people asked identified the married star. Student Sophie Headlong, 19, of Exeter, said: ‘To put an injunction on something everyone already knows – it’s like re-working history. There’s something of George Orwell and 1984 about it.’
Account manager Daniel Stevens, 48, who also knew the name, said: ‘Super-injunctions seem to exist for celebrities who believe they are better than everybody else.
‘This isn’t really about privacy. It’s just another way
of hiding the truth – a smokescreen to protect their public image.’
In London, 55 per cent of those asked correctly identified the star. Others knew the player’s name but had forgotten or said they would know how to find it without difficulty.
Andy Thompson, 41, a retail manager from South London, knew the player’s name and said: ‘Everybody in the whole world knows who it is.’
Taxi driver James Richards, 43, from London, said: ‘Of course I know who it is. It would be impossible not to know in this job.’
Our survey raises serious questions about the effectiveness of super-injunctions, which are so strict it is illegal to refer to their existence.
Applicants securing them are not allowed to be named, nor the reason why they are seeking them.
0 comments:
Post a Comment