Now love rat football star plans to sue TWITTER in latest farce over injunction against former lover Imogen Thomas

A Premier League footballer yesterday launched a legal bid to silence Twitter and those who use it.
The footballer – who was granted a privacy injunction over his adulterous affair with Big Brother contestant Imogen Thomas – was among those named on the social media site earlier this month.
His name has already been the subject of intense speculation on the internet and has been published in several countries.

The anonymous footballer who has an injunction against reality TV star Imogen Thomas (pictured yesterday) and The Sun launched his legal action on May 18

His groundbreaking legal action came on the same day that top judges sought to strengthen privacy laws and even threatened to stop MPs and Lords discussing gagging orders in Parliament.

Secretive: The married Premier League football star is suing Twitter

The footballer’s action will test if judges determined to censor British newspapers can also gag the electronic media and those who post illicit information on them.
It also raises the question of whether Twitter, which is based in San Francisco and has no base in the UK, can be brought to heel by the British courts.
In other developments:

• In an extraordinary attack on the ancient right of Parliamentary privilege, the Speaker, John Bercow, and his counterpart in the House of Lords face being told to stop members raising injunctions on the floor of the two Houses,
• Britain’s top judges were accused of ‘gagging the media’ by suggesting even those who report on the discussion of superinjunctions in Parliament could be found in contempt of court,
• The Financial Services Authority is now expected to begin an inquiry into Sir Fred Goodwin to see if his affair with a senior member of staff affected his judgment in the run-up to the collapse of RBS.

Couple: Fred Goodwin has been married to Lady Joyce for 20 years. He took out an injunction about an affair with a colleague

Lord Stoneham, pictured yesterday, left, revealed details of Sir Fred's court order in the House of Lords after John Hemming MP, right, asked in the Commons about an order obtained by Sir Fred, which banned the media from calling him a banker

The bid to sue a gossip site is unprecedented and is yet another attempt to extend the power of the privacy laws built by English judges on the back of the Human Rights Act.

However, lawyers questioned how someone whose privacy is technically still being shielded by the courts can sue over his lost privacy.

WHAT IS PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE?

Parliamentary privilege is the protection which stops MPs and peers from being sued for defamation for any statement they make in Parliament.
The origins date back to the English Civil War when Parliament was fighting for the right to independence from the monarchy. Back then the law was the will of the King.
But it was the 1689 the Bill of Rights which established parliament's rights following the Glorious Revolution and officially enshrined parliamentary privilege in English law.
Article 9 guarantees freedom of speech stating 'the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament'.
Privilege has become an issue now because the Lord Chief Justice said today newspapers could be found in contempt of court for merely reporting what is said in Parliament.
His comments are seen by critics as an attempt by the courts to censor parliamentary proceedings - when it is a constitutional right enshrined in English law - and they say the law belongs to everyone - not just judges and the courts.

Last night, the action was already being ridiculed on Twitter when a top TV star questioned the decision and named  the footballer.

In the past, those suing for privacy damages under the Human Rights Act have been those whose names have been disclosed.
No details were available of the court action last night. The law firm Schillings, which is acting for the footballer, declined to comment.
The action was revealed hours after Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge, the most senior judge in England, said he hoped it would be possible to sue internet firms.
Lord Judge said: ‘Modern technology is totally out of control. I’m not giving up on the possibility that people who peddle lies about others through using technology may one day be brought under control, maybe through damages, very substantial damages, maybe even injunctions.’

Documents posted at the High Court in London said only that CTB – court code for  the footballer – is taking action against ‘Twitter Inc, Persons Unknown Responsible For The Publication Of Information On  The Twitter Accounts Listed In The Confidential Schedule’.
The writ could also target the Twitter users who posted the footballer’s name and may signal an attempt to persuade a judge to take action against the company or its users for contempt of court.
Matt Graves, a spokesman for Twitter, said: ‘We are unable to comment.’
Niri Shan, head of media law at international firm Taylor Wessing, said: ‘If Twitter refuse to accept service of a writ, the footballer will have to go through a complicated process in the American courts.
‘They will certainly throw out anything based on British privacy law. Their constitution guarantees freedom of speech.’
Miss Thomas says the injunction has banned her from defending herself.