Is it the Sun what lost it?

An alternative view on the Giggs injunction.

The Sun can publish the name of Ryan Giggs, and so can we. So can, it would appear, over 70,000 Twitter users. And we can all connect Mr Giggs to Imogen Thomas and the allegation of an affair.

As it stands, the Sun cannot do much more than that. The terms of the injunction, which is still in place, would appear to prohibit the Sun from publishing the details of the alleged relationship, rather than just the fact of its existence.

But it is the details which make the "kiss and tell" commercially worthwhile: the information for which the notorious chequebook is used. The Sun, previously in a position where it was at a disadvantage to Twitter users, is now on the same footing as any other Twitter user. However, it cannot print the account of the relationship it would like to because it is injuncted, and Twitter users cannot because they simply do not know. And the Sun is unlikely to share that information.

Some media lawyers are now wondering whether the Sun has won any significant victory after all. The internet and a foolish MP may well have assisted in removing the anonymity of this particular injunction; but it may be that the Sun has still not gained any commercial advantage, and they have been saddled with the high legal bills as well.

This may be media lawyers just being optimistic about a bad outcome; but one must wonder how often a tabloid will mount a similar exercise again if, as it now looks, they are ultimately still unable to commercialise their story.


David Allen Green is legal correspondent of New Statesman



David Allen Green is legal correspondent of the New Statesman and author of the Jack of Kent blog.

His legal journalism has included popularising the Simon Singh libel case and discrediting the Julian Assange myths about his extradition case.  His uncovering of the Nightjack email hack by the Times was described as "masterly analysis" by Lord Justice Leveson.

David is also a solicitor and was successful in the "Twitterjoketrial" appeal at the High Court.

(Nothing on this blog constitutes legal advice.)

Carl Court/Getty
Show Hide image

To stop Jeremy Corbyn, I am giving my second preference to Andy Burnham

The big question is whether Andy Burnham or Yvette Cooper will face Jeremy in the final round of this election.

Voting is now underway in the Labour leadership election. There can be no doubt that Jeremy Corbyn is the frontrunner, but the race isn't over yet.

I know from conversations across the country that many voters still haven't made up their mind.

Some are drawn to Jeremy's promises of a new Jerusalem and endless spending, but worried that these endless promises, with no credibility, will only serve to lose us the next general election.

Others are certain that a Jeremy victory is really a win for Cameron and Osborne, but don't know who is the best alternative to vote for.

I am supporting Liz Kendall and will give her my first preference. But polling data is brutally clear: the big question is whether Andy Burnham or Yvette Cooper will face Jeremy in the final round of this election.

Andy can win. He can draw together support from across the party, motivated by his history of loyalty to the Labour movement, his passionate appeal for unity in fighting the Tories, and the findings of every poll of the general public in this campaign that he is best placed candidate to win the next general election.

Yvette, in contrast, would lose to Jeremy Corbyn and lose heavily. Evidence from data collected by all the campaigns – except (apparently) Yvette's own – shows this. All publicly available polling shows the same. If Andy drops out of the race, a large part of the broad coalition he attracts will vote for Jeremy. If Yvette is knocked out, her support firmly swings behind Andy.

We will all have our views about the different candidates, but the real choice for our country is between a Labour government and the ongoing rightwing agenda of the Tories.

I am in politics to make a real difference to the lives of my constituents. We are all in the Labour movement to get behind the beliefs that unite all in our party.

In the crucial choice we are making right now, I have no doubt that a vote for Jeremy would be the wrong choice – throwing away the next election, and with it hope for the next decade.

A vote for Yvette gets the same result – her defeat by Jeremy, and Jeremy's defeat to Cameron and Osborne.

In the crucial choice between Yvette and Andy, Andy will get my second preference so we can have the best hope of keeping the fight for our party alive, and the best hope for the future of our country too.

Tom Blenkinsop is the Labour MP for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland