Ashley Cole legal shenanigans

[Napster]

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=40872&c=1

Footballer Ashley Cole has admitted scoring with a string of women while married to wife Cheryl, but claims that tabloid stories about his flings breached his privacy.

In court documents, Cole sensationally admitted that he had sexual relationships with Aimee Walton, Brooke Healy, Coralie Robinson and Jakki Degg. But he says that none of the women asked him for permission to disclose their relationships with him before going to a tabloid newspaper.

He accuses the four women of infringing his rights in a flagrant, self-serving and unilateral manner and says publication of stories about his sex life was wrongful and a breach of confidence, an infringement of his right to privacy and a misuse of private information.

continues...

 

[Aberdeen Shrimper]

I am sure that it an interesting read but i really don’t give two sh*its about Ashley Coles Love life.

 

[Interpol Shrimper]

He really is an odious little **** isn't he?
He certainly also doesn't need to wind up with a six-figure damages package either.

So, were the Ash is gay rumours then maybe put out to put the press off the scent that's he's in reality a serial adulterer?

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

He doesn't need the six-figure damages package, but if he succeeds it will stop the tabloids printing all this crap. I hope he succeeds.

 

[Aberdeen Shrimper]

He doesn't need the six-figure damages package, but if he succeeds it will stop the tabloids printing all this crap. I hope he succeeds.

Just like a bugie!!

 

[Napster]

He doesn't need the six-figure damages package, but if he succeeds it will stop the tabloids printing all this crap. I hope he succeeds.

It's actually quite an interesting legal development. Cole has got a point...

Cole argues that he does not hold any public office or carry out any official duties, and information about his sex life "was not capable of contributing to a debate in a democratic society relating to matters of public interest".

Walton spoke about their fling for financial reward rather than any legitimate purpose, he says. And he claims that Walton, Healy, Robinson and Degg did not seek his permission to disclose information, or warn him in advance, before infringing his rights to privacy.

 

[Pubey]

It's actually quite an interesting legal development. Cole has got a point...

Cole argues that he does not hold any public office or carry out any official duties, and information about his sex life "was not capable of contributing to a debate in a democratic society relating to matters of public interest".

Walton spoke about their fling for financial reward rather than any legitimate purpose, he says. And he claims that Walton, Healy, Robinson and Degg did not seek his permission to disclose information, or warn him in advance, before infringing his rights to privacy.

yep i agree with the point entirely. I dislike Ashley Cole, but this case could bring to an end all these 'kiss and tell' stories which do no one any favours apart from the newspapers who print them.

 

[fatshrimp]

What a ****!

 

[Einstein]

yep i agree with the point entirely. I dislike Ashley Cole, but this case could bring to an end all these 'kiss and tell' stories which do no one any favours apart from the newspapers who print them.

The Sun & The News of the World will be non-existant within weeks!

 

[Usual_Suspect]

Jakki Degg - Possitve Rep for that.

 

[returningshrimper]

I forgot to add him to the list of people who face i'd like to fill in...horrible little oik

 

[Bentley's Absurd Gait]

He doesn't need the six-figure damages package, but if he succeeds it will stop the tabloids printing all this crap. I hope he succeeds.

As much as I despise the little *******, and cannot believe he's bagged Miss Degg (jealous? you bet your life), I agree with YB. Not for his benefit, but because this kind of news reporting gets on my tits and prevents the Sun from scaremongering about immigration. :finger:

 

[Kenny]

So let me get this straight, Cheryl Tweedy took him back despite him coming clean about shagging these other girls ON TOP of that dodgy hairdresser!

 

[Napster]

So let me get this straight, Cheryl Tweedy took him back despite him coming clean about shagging these other girls ON TOP of that dodgy hairdresser!

How did he manage that? Sounds logistically improbable.

 

[number11]

As much as I despise the little *******, and cannot believe he's bagged Miss Degg (jealous? you bet your life), I agree with YB. Not for his benefit, but because this kind of news reporting gets on my tits :finger:

Agreed, and also a good thing if it puts a stop to the money grabbing whores, such as that dirtbag of a hairdresser, running to the papers to get their 'fame and fortune'.

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

It's actually quite an interesting legal development. Cole has got a point...

Does he? Personally, I think he's full of absolute tripe. He's seeking to argue:

a breach of confidence, an infringement of his right to privacy and a misuse of private information.

Huh? Breach of confidence? Since when did shagging someone automatically create a right to presume that the "transaction" is confidential?

Infringement to his right to privacy? Again, sorry, no. When you jump someone's bones - especially when you are acting in an adulterous manner - you are surely waiving your right to privacy. Time was, in the last 50 years, that someone seeking a divorce actually had to actively obtain information about your adulterous behaviour in order to prove their grounds for divorce - so having extra-marital sex is, I should have thought, cast iron grounds for a waiver of privacy.

Misuse of private ingormation...?! Eh? What information does one impart when one jumpsinto bed with someone else?

Cole argues that he does not hold any public office

I disagree. Whenever he pulls on the three Lions, Cole is holding a very public office, representing our nation at football. He has a very public role as a national sporting ambassador. I think we have every right to expect that our national sporting ambassadors conduct themselves in an appropriate manner - and that includes not behaving as a serial adulterer.

Personally, I think these "right to privacy" cases are an insidious and highly damaging intrusion on the freedom of our press. How often do you see "Joe Public" using right to privacy?

Instead, right to privacy is being used as a charter for rich miscreants to keep their dirty linen out of the public eye. If these stories were really untrue, how come Cole isn't suing for libel? Instead, he is spending his cash to gag the press in whatever way he sees fit - although, presumably, whenever he has something he wants to sell, or has some other money-making scheme, he'll be trying to milk the press for every last piece of self-serving publicity he can get.

Well, it's b*llsh*t if you ask me. The relationship with the media and celebs is a very simple one. Either you make it clear from the outset that your private life is private from day 1 and you want the media to play no part in it (e.g. Paul Scholes); or you thrust yourself into the spotlight for good or ill (Cashley Cole, Britney Spears).

B*ll*cks to Cole. I hope he loses - and if he does, I hope the media give him hell. He's earned it.

:flamer:

 

[Slipperduke]

B*ll*cks to Cole. I hope he loses - and if he does, I hope the media give him hell. He's earned it.

:flamer:

*stands up, applauds wildly, throws his top hat into the air*

It is public interest because the odious pair use their relationship to sell their lifestyle to the public, be it in expensive magazine photoshoots or records or replica shirts. They have set themselves up as the new Posh'n'Becks by flogging their wedding pics, posing for National Lottery advertising, releasing stories just as albums are coming out.

If it is fair game for them to use their relationship to make money, then it is fair game for the media to expose their relationship as a disaster if they have proof.

If they insist on taking money that they don't really need in order to flaunt their lives, they have to accept that the door swings both ways.

 

[Napster]

Sorry, Matt, but being selected to play for England does not equal being democratically voted in to represent the general public.

I happen to think that he has got a right to privacy, however sad, I agree with the tosser. Everyone has. I blame his media advisors, more than anyone,not him. He's not that intelligent, but he's being screwed, literally and figuratively. However jealous we may be of his money, everyone has the right to a fair and just life...

 

[Napster]

*stands up, applauds wildly, throws his top hat into the air*

It is public interest because the odious pair use their relationship to sell their lifestyle to the public, be it in expensive magazine photoshoots or records or replica shirts. They have set themselves up as the new Posh'n'Becks by flogging their wedding pics, posing for National Lottery advertising, releasing stories just as albums are coming out.

If it is fair game for them to use their relationship to make money, then it is fair game for the media to expose their relationship as a disaster if they have proof.

If they insist on taking money that they don't really need in order to flaunt their lives, they have to accept that the door swings both ways.

I know what you mean, but most of that is due to her, rather than him. He's an idiot, a simple fool, not a scheming individual.

 

[Bentley's Absurd Gait]

I don't want to read about the odious little toss-bag shagging Jakki Degg because it makes me feel particularly small for owning the 2005 Jakki Degg calender.