They already found a way to capitalise on it
We at The Register would like to take a moment to formally denounce the media's despicable smear job of US golfer Tiger Woods over malicious and unproven claims that he cheated on his wife with — at last count — every single able-bodied cocktail waitress living in the Northern Hemisphere today. What right does does the media …
... obviously hasn't heard of the Streisand Effect
Of course I'm not suggesting that you google his name with that term at all.
These people are not exactly the brightest are they...
A quick Google for "tiger woods uk injunction" throws up an article explaining exactly what we can't see as the first result!
And you could have put something funny under the blacked out bits (yes, I looked).
Good while it lasts.
But don't worry, Mandy will take care of it in time.
As i pointed out below try http://www.nationalenquirer.com/ seems to be blocked from UK IP addresses but a good old proxie and it works? The dark lord? you decide.
A bit more research and i've found this http://www.ma-radio.gold.ac.uk/cmle/blognovember2009.htm The national Enquier is blocking there site because of this libel ruling.
Today's NY Times has an article about the possibility of England rationalizing its libel laws. Not necessarily that El Reg can't be skinned for mocking Tiger, so much as that Ruritanian A can't sue Ruritanian B in London because an English monoglot clicked on a Ruritanian-language website with A's harsh word's for B.
But somebody should point out to Accenture that only two letters differ between "ultimate' and "intimate".
Has what's not being said here on El Reg.
As does TMZ.
Are those sheep meant to be Irish or Scottish?
Oh and can I just have a niggle at Accenture for putting a bloody > over the letter 't'. I can? Thanks.
Damn. I tried cut'n'paste over the redacted stuff. Just in case. Somebody needs to be fired.
Now when I search for Tiger Woods PGA Golf for Playstation as a xmas present, not only will I break this high court injunction and I will be sent to Gitmo to do time beside the Pentagon Hacker and those crazy militant Icelandic volcanic bathing pools of terror fundies, but I will also break numerous extreme pr0n laws that inundate this country, plus probably even bringing back the links will land me with the three strikes rule and my pathetic broadband connection will be cut out from under me, despite the guv'normint wanting broadband to be in every house in the country like electricity and whatnot...
.. that's like nine women who've seen Tiger's wood.
From the Bushes into the forest!
You mean you didn't hire the TSA's Official Redactor to write this story? Shame...
... to the effect that there exist nude photographs of Mr. Justice Eady. A sobering thought.
Maybe they think they are allowed to report that the US media are reporting that the UK high court has blocked the publication of XXXX XXXXXXXX of XXXXX (almost slipped there). It is true that at some point, not talking about the subject sounds like sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "la la la not listening"...
Anyway, one more victim of the Streisand effect. You have to admire the futility of it all. Who gave the order? Are they actually trying to ramp up the attention on the case? I would have thought Woods would want to keep out of sight for a bit...
For doing your part to entertain, inform and showing the naughty bits of tech.. I love "The Register".
Where else can your read about the latest super computing chip, and the latest self-destructing chump.
You folks are the best ! Thanks for that.
Didn't bother reading the "article", but your dashes are showing.
Damn google! Damn OCR!
The redacted text makes it really funny, for 0.001% of the population.
you did a PlayMobil re-enactment - but hid the faces, obviously - would that constitute a breach of the thing we can't talk about?
Mine's the one with the Toronto Star in the back pocket.
The Mash has already spoken: http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/sport/sport-headlines/transgressions-had-fabulous-tits,-says-woods-200912032277/
I, for one, welcome our ------------------! overlords
Go on - I dare you! Don't know if the playmobil kit has a golf club, but El Reg has proven it's got balls!
I hope Tiger's lawyers see this thread. I had absolutely no interest in what Woods has been up to, until he started abusing the English legal process.
It took no time at all to find the "offending matter" on websites hosted overseas, dragging up in the search lots of comment along the lines of "what filthy perversions might Woods be trying to hide?".
Big own goal Tiger - or should I say "double bogey"?
I for one don't really want to see the "aleged" pictures of Tigers' Wood!
I prefer to read comments from people who can spell. Like "aleged". Try "alleged". Try drugs. Try trainspotting. Try a spellchecker, if you're illiterate. Try the "preview" button, and read first. Try not being a fuc*king moron.
Perhaps this story will turn up on 'Winkie-leaks' ?
So what changes that?
But doesn't the press just love to build somebody up so they can knock him down? The higher the pedestal, the further he has to fall.
"The injunction issued Thursday notably blocks the media from even revealing details of the order itself. And because we're based in the UK, we are not allowed to say what exactly has been barred."
So how does this work then? If I want to publish something (on the web say), then I obviously need to know if it contravenes the injunction so that I don't get in bother. Do I have to approach the court for advice? Obviously I can't just ask any other news outlet because they are not allowed to tell me! But who tells them? How did the Reg find out what can and can't be published?
This is a serious question - does anyone know? Reg???
The solicitors (Schillings in this case) basically spam every news/blog outlet with a "To whom it may concern" copy of the injunction. The copy of the injunction will also have a copy of the "confidential schedule" which is the part you're not allowed to tell anyone about. In theory.
The UK isn't known as the libel capital of the world for nothing - our laws are farcical.
Who is covered by the injuction?
Presumably only those who have have been served notice of it, or have read it.
Otherwise, everyone would be forced to look on wikileaks to find out what it says otherwise they could not obey, which would be a ridiculous situation.
(About as ridiculous as extraditing a citizen to a country that uses torture for something that was not committed on their soil and was only retrospectively made a crime.)
All this talk of woods and gagging, makes me wonder if it's some sort of extreme porn. :)
I was totally uninterested in the whole thing until this happened, the Streisand effect indeed.
(OK apart from being amused that someone with the name TIGER WOODS was caught shagging)
... if accidentally break the injunction?
Lets see. There is an injunction, but we are not allowed to say what has been injuncted, and cannot discuss the existence of the injunction even if we want to prevent ourselves being sued because someone else talks about the injuncted subject.
So if I mention something here (... mumble mumble ... woods .... mumble mumble .... had his photo taken .... mumble mumble .... ) and el reg prints my comments, who gets sued? You or me?
Wait, its me, I can see the black helicopters circling.
Now the dilemma, do I go for Black Helicopters icon or Paris (who surely had never had her photo taken like that).
I don't really give a flying crap what some ridiculous sports personality did, but the courts are paid for by MY TAXES, what the HELL are they doing granting injunctions to this pillock?
Injunctions are dead. They have shuffled off this mortal coil and are only of interest to lawyers and the dead tree press. Only way to prevent having images of you boning some waitress published is to.....Not have images taken of you boning aforementioned beer deliverer.
As for Tiger, good work fella! Most other blokes would have as well
There are two ways of looking at this story. Either;
a) The Honourable Mr Justice Eady is an ignorant neo-luddite who hasn't been informed of this new-fangled internet thingymajig and as a consequence doesn't realise that ANYBODY, such as myself, can download and read his 6-page order plus 2-page covering letter from Schillings from a myriad of off-shore websites.
b) Eady is working as an agent provocateur to undermine from within the useless, antiquated and frankly shit UK libel laws, to provoke an overwhelming demand from the public that the whole shoddy pack of donkey-balls be torn down and replaced with something more fitting a modern democracy.
I hope it's (b).
Aren't you missing the obvious? If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. Tiger Woods has something to hide and Mr. Justice Eady has materially assisted him. Hence:
c) Tiger Woods is a terrorist and Mr Justice Eady is a supporter of terrorism.
Simple logic, really! Now off to Belmarsh with him!
to be (a)
Yeah, Woods fucked up. Big time. I hope his soon-to-be-ex-wife takes him to the cleaners. But other than the two of them (and peripherally, various family members), who the fuck really cares? How does it affect anyone else, anywhere?
Seriously ... Given that I grok the "odds & sods" thingy, how will this so-called "news" affect the life of anyone reading this story? Even a little bit? Other than the advertisers, that is ... And yeah, I get the "RedTop" aspect, too ... but c'mon. Don't we get enough of this crap everywhere else? Does nobody other than myself have a life of their own anymore?
As I once advised an ElReg staff member, the only sex lives you should be worried about are those of your partner(s), and your own. In that order.
Losing the tired "Paris" meme would be a good idea, too, for the same reason ...
If your unhappy with the news reporting here at El Reg may i point you toward http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/index.html doesn't have a red top to it so maybe better for your blood pressure.
Keep up the good work El Reg tongue firmly in cheek with this one.
It is quite clear she gave him the traditional swedish morning after meeting of husband returning to breakfast. With a golf club.
So if she takes him to the cleaners for this, he will have no choice, but to take her too for a GBH if not an attempted murder. A golf club used on a head is usually treated as the latter (it looks like he has a very wooden head, probably that is where his family name comes from).
That is pretty much a stalemate. Pity about the kids which will grown in the midst of it.
... el reg cousins across the pond posted the details in USA would we still be able to access them here in poor, poor, dreadfully poor old blighty?
He obviously needs to hire Trafigura's lawyers and get an injunction on reporting injunction - just to prove a point.
Having seen the pics of some of his err.. golfing partners, my thought was I Wood as well. But then I'm not married, so don't have his publicists challenges.
Must be plenty of promotional possibilities around Tiger and Wood, and his prowess on and off the course.
Now thats one picture we won't see. A certain successful non caucasian golfer "Playing through the rough" with a certain jewish American singer of who has had a long an successful career in both stage and film
Hopefully not too late to point out that, following some good campaigning work by Private Eye (who labour under a number of such NSL-like secret injunctions) and the Guardian (remember Trafigura?) a number of worthies including the blessed @bengoldacre launched a campaign to fix the ludicrous and execrable UK libel laws and bring and end to the particularly pernicious phenomena of libel tourism.
Write to your MP now!
The libel courts aren't paid for out of taxes, they make a fortune.
All those foreign stars arriving and paying thousands/day QCs to sue each other in London is a big foreign income earner.
Now that UK industry is stuffed, the invisible earnings in the City are stuffed and there are no tourists because we keep shooting them - fees paid to libel lawyers are probably the UK's only source of hard currency.
Living the ultimate pro sports star's dream. Go get'em Tiger!
You've got a ways to go to break that score. You're good in the rough, so that increases the pool you have to select from!
I want to report "The Register" for not using TSA approved redaction. Those black blocks must reveal something other than a string of hyphens, preferably useful information already known by the people you're trying to hide it from, and only surprising to apathetic "Joe Q. Public" who believes the line "I'm from (FEMA|Homeland Security|FBI|et al gov agencies) and I'm here to help you.
Didn't they used to be called Norwich Union?
You're thinking of a small shop in London Street, Norwich called Aviva,
whereas Accenture used to be the huge and well known Anderson Consulting.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017