Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

interestrateripoff

'i've Been Thrown To The Lions Because I Didn't Have £50,000 To Protect My Name': Imogen Thomas Reduced To Tears As She Tells Of Suffering Over

Recommended Posts

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1381094/Imogen-Thomas-reduced-tears-tells-suffering-super-injunctio.html

Someone was clearly seeking to put this into the public domain, although if as claimed in this article it wasn't Imogen seeking to sell her story why wasn't she granted privacy as well?

So the man gets to keep identity secret (or not if you search the web) and she is named. I wonder what would happen if she went on live TV and named him in protest, if in deed she wasn't intending on selling her story?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.dailymail...-injunctio.html

Someone was clearly seeking to put this into the public domain, although if as claimed in this article it wasn't Imogen seeking to sell her story why wasn't she granted privacy as well?

So the man gets to keep identity secret (or not if you search the web) and she is named. I wonder what would happen if she went on live TV and named him in protest, if in deed she wasn't intending on selling her story?

She'd have been slung into jail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were her that's what I'd do. Being known as a martyr for free speech is better than being an ex-Big Brother contestant.

Absolutely. Serve the b&st&rd right, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SOoo?

What about all the men falsely accused of rape, who are acquitted but have their named dirtied forever while the accuser is allowed to remain anonymous?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I caught her on morning TV, interviewed alongside a lawyer specialising in this sort of stuff.

She says she is sorry for what she did, and is sorry for herself. No hint that she is sorry for the footballer's wife.

When confronted by the press, she denied the affair. The lawyer pointed out she should have said 'no comment' instead. She protested that she couldn't afford advisors. So it was fine to lie, she needed an 'advisor' to find her moral compass.

Apparently she is ex-Big brother. She wants attention when it suits her.

This talentless self-pitying attention-whore could be hung out to dry by the press for all I care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His wife and kids I feel sorry for. Not this woman - perhaps she will now learn a lesson.

Is she sorry that:

1. They got caught?

2. That he did not leave his wife and children for her?

3. That she can't sell her story to the papers for a big chunk of cash? (Seems to me that she is in the papers often enough - is she being paid?)

4. That there are plenty of people who think she is a slapper who sleeps with other women's cheating husbands?

5. She hurt so many people emotionally and is now going to try and put things right by giving any money she has made, or may make, from this story to charity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His wife and kids I feel sorry for. Not this woman - perhaps she will now learn a lesson.

Is she sorry that:

1. They got caught?

2. That he did not leave his wife and children for her?

3. That she can't sell her story to the papers for a big chunk of cash? (Seems to me that she is in the papers often enough - is she being paid?)

4. That there are plenty of people who think she is a slapper who sleeps with other women's cheating husbands?

5. She hurt so many people emotionally and is now going to try and put things right by giving any money she has made, or may make, from this story to charity?

I really don't think this is the point. Whether or not Imogen deserves to be outed as a slapper has very little to do with whether super-injuctions are justified. The injunction affects EVERYONE. No one is allowed to discuss the issue openly. We all know who the footballer is but even we will not risk naming him. This is an attack on free speech. It seems ALL our liberties can be curtailed by the rich. I wish she would out him on televison and then we will see these injuctions for the travesty that they are.

This is a slippery slope. It might be stupid affairs now but further down the line criminal and negligent activity might be hidden. This is a fundamental abuse of the law by the rich. These injuctions must be stopped now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His wife and kids I feel sorry for. Not this woman

+1

- perhaps she will now learn a lesson.

Has he? or now he's got a super injuctions will he think it's alright to do it again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a slippery slope. It might be stupid affairs now but further down the line criminal and negligent activity might be hidden. This is a fundamental abuse of the law by the rich. These injuctions must be stopped now.

This is my concern.

One of these injunctions involves someone who got his colleague the sack, because the affair made working with her difficult. Even is he personally hasn't broken some employment law, surely the production company have?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a married person has an affair with someone else - the married person's spouse and children will be hurt. Who is mainly responsible for this hurt? I would contend, your honour, that it is the married person, and that to use the courts to `protect my family' is very hypocritical.

Yes, we all know who the footballer is (Private Eye confirms it today), and in this case it is purely prurient interest that would mean the newspapers want to run the story. Unless of course the palaver around getting the injuction etc meant that the footballer missed an important match which was subsequently lost - letting down lots of supporters and other players, owners etc.

Andrew Marr is/was different - both his affair and the superinjuction could have impacted on his ability to carry out his particular public sector job.

Fred Goodwin might also be different. If the matters we can't discuss could conceivably have affected his judgement in running RBS - and there is evidence that it wasn't run too well - then it would be of real public interest.

Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's *********** *******... no wonder he has been off form

My information is that it is someone else. I'm not going to publish it here for legal reasons

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My information is that it is someone else. I'm not going to publish it here for legal reasons

I know who it is..... Great footballer and squeeky clean image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a married person has an affair with someone else - the married person's spouse and children will be hurt. Who is mainly responsible for this hurt? I would contend, your honour, that it is the married person, and that to use the courts to `protect my family' is very hypocritical.

Too true. Why is he a victim while she is branded a homewrecking 'slapper'?

Amazing in this day and age tbh. Taliban will be running it all soon enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all over the tinternet now anyway.

It's Brian Higgs, or something like that.

The thing with these super injunctions is all the other people who get speculated against while it's still a secret. I bet there's been a few dodgy conversations in these millionaires' houses lately denying that on this occaision it's them. Also, if you know a bit of gossip about a celebrity, how are you supposed to know if there is a super injunction stopping you talking about it? It's all ABC this and XYZ that so unless you were specifically notified, you're not to know that that particular snippet is locked down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all over the tinternet now anyway.

It's Brian Higgs, or something like that.

The thing with these super injunctions is all the other people who get speculated against while it's still a secret. I bet there's been a few dodgy conversations in these millionaires' houses lately denying that on this occaision it's them. Also, if you know a bit of gossip about a celebrity, how are you supposed to know if there is a super injunction stopping you talking about it? It's all ABC this and XYZ that so unless you were specifically notified, you're not to know that that particular snippet is locked down.

Good player :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a married person has an affair with someone else - the married person's spouse and children will be hurt. Who is mainly responsible for this hurt? I would contend, your honour, that it is the married person, and that to use the courts to `protect my family' is very hypocritical.

Yes, we all know who the footballer is (Private Eye confirms it today), and in this case it is purely prurient interest that would mean the newspapers want to run the story. Unless of course the palaver around getting the injuction etc meant that the footballer missed an important match which was subsequently lost - letting down lots of supporters and other players, owners etc.

Andrew Marr is/was different - both his affair and the superinjuction could have impacted on his ability to carry out his particular public sector job.

Fred Goodwin might also be different. If the matters we can't discuss could conceivably have affected his judgement in running RBS - and there is evidence that it wasn't run too well - then it would be of real public interest.

Y

If the footballer in question has lucrative sponsorship deals that depend at least partly on a 'clean' image, I'd suggest it's not just embarrassment to himself and his family he's thinking of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.

She's taken up singing going for a pop career.

Does no one have the punchline for this?

...

Was too forward and caught off-side! <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 312 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.