The Daily Mash publishes super injunction footballer's name with 'quotes' on the subject
Spoof news website The Daily Mash has not only named the Premier League footballer who has imposed a super injunction against the media from naming him, it has gone so far as to ‘quote’ him.
In a story on the website claiming that lawyers have been forced to cut the price of super-injunctions by three-quarters after it emerged that they don’t really work, the Daily Mash has chosen to directly ‘quote’ the footballer who is thought to have invoked one in order to prevent the press from naming him in relation to an affair with former Big Brother contestant Imogen Thomas.
The story claims that lawyers are now to offer a Super Injunction Lite, which lasts just 20 minutes for the cut price sum of £12,000, or an own-brand ‘value’ super injunction, which is virtually useless but valued at £6.50, or will offer to for a tenner.
The ‘quote’ by the footballer, which includes his name, then reads: "I got it home and within a week it had stopped working. I checked for a troubleshooting guide at the back of the instruction booklet, but there wasn't one.
"It was almost as if they were saying it could not possibly go wrong."
He added: "I just think British made super-injunctions are really poor quality. So in future, if I am going to have sex with Imogen Thomas again, I think I'll just offer her the money up front and get her to sign a confidentiality agreement.
"It's not terribly erotic but it's got to be cheaper than f@cking about with lawyers."
It is thought that this could be the first mainstream website other than Twitter in the UK to directly defy the super injunction and name the footballer in question outright.
It follows yesterday’s decision by the Sunday Herald to publish a picture of the footballer on its front page, directly connecting him to the injunction, although the paper declined to publish the image and story on its website in order to prevent it being published outside of Scotland, where its editor Richard Walker believes another super injunction would need to have been passed for it to be upheld.
The newspaper also failed to send editions of its newspaper to England to ensure that it did not defy the injunction south of the border.