Logan speaks out against Twitter ‘lies’

TV presenter Gabby Logan has spoken of her frustration over false rumours on Twitter about her private life.

She said she would do everything she could to protect her family but said she could not take action against everyone using the social networking site to spread lies.

The 38-year-old host of the BBC’s Final Score said: “My name was brought into this mess with someone else accusing me of something which is clearly not true and the newspapers knew this and they published a story saying it wasn’t true, but it is happening because super-injunctions are in place and people are trying to guess who is involved.

“Newspapers clearly think it’s a curtailing of the freedom of speech, which it is, but how do you police the internet?”

The married mother-of-two said her reputation had been damaged by the false allegations, which linked her to former footballer Alan Shearer.

Speaking on ITV, she said: “To tell lies about people, and lies about their family — that’s where it ends for me. I protect my family to the end and I’m not going to have that, but clearly I can’t go around suing everyone on Twitter.

“It is muddying the waters for people who have done nothing wrong.”

In an attempt to get around gagging order taken against newspapers, an anonymous user claiming to expose famous people who have obtained injunctions that prevent reporting about their private lives wrongly suggested socialite and campaigner Jemima Khan had stopped publication of pictures of her with Top Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson.

Ms Khan responded on Twitter by posting the message: “Rumour that I have a super-injunction preventing publication of ‘intimate’ photos of me and Jeremy Clarkson. NOT TRUE!”

There is growing disquiet about use of injunctions and “super-injunctions”, whose very existence cannot be reported.

British culture secretary Jeremy Hunt said Twitter was “making a mockery” of privacy laws and pledged to examine how best to bring regulations up to date.

Prime Minister David Cameron sounded a warning about the way judges rather than parliament are creating new privacy laws by granting such injunctions.