Tiger Nude Photos Next After Brit Sex Revelation?

Last month I reported:

Tiger Woods Nude Pics Banned In Britain Before Jungers Interview

On December 11, Woods’ lawyers hurriedly obtained an injunction from the High Court of London banning any publication of nude photos of (Tiger) Woods in the United Kingdom. On December 12, London tabloid NEWS OF THE WORLD splashed a huge interview and video chat with (Woods alleged mistress Jamie) Jungers.

England and Chelsea soccer captain John Terry obtained the exact same injunction on Jan. 22 when he found out that the same News of the World was set to publish a story about his extramarital affair with Vanessa Perroncel, the girlfriend of Wayne Bridge, his England and ex-Chelsea teammate.

John Terry Got Ex-Teammates Girlfriend Pregnant

(Story was initially spiked by Tiger-like U.K. High Court ruling)

But in a stunning reversal a week later, High Court judge Michael Tugendhat ruled that New of the World could publish its story about Terry’s alleged affair.

So should Woods now be worried about a reversal in his case? Based on the written reasoning for the reversal by High Court judge Tugendhat, absolutely.

Judge Tugendhat wrote:

I have reached the view that it is likely that the nub of LNS’s (John Terry’s) complaint in this case is the protection of reputation, and not of any other aspect of LNS’s private life. The real basis for the concern of LNS is likely to be the impact of any adverse publicity upon the business of earning sponsorship and similar income.”

Like Woods, Terry has numerous endorsement deals, including one that features him as “Dad of the Year.

Legal reax of the reversal from the Toronto GLOBE & MAIL:

Ambi Sitham, a media lawyer, called High Court judge Michael Tugendhat’s decision “hugely significant,” and said while those with legitimate privacy concerns would continue to be protected, people trying to escape scrutiny for other reasons won’t find relief in the courts.

“It’s a big red flag for high-profile people, who are increasingly using privacy law to keep sordid details out of the press,” she said.

The basis of the Woods injunction and the initial Terry injunction was to protect privacy. But in the case of Woods, he has since admitted to “infidelity” and his plea for continued privacy is, at least in part, to help preserve endorsement deals worth innumerable millions of dollars. That’s precisely the reason the High Court judge gave for lifting the injunction on the Terry News of the World story.

I haven’t confirmed that News of the World was the publication that Woods was attempting to block with his injunction from the High Court, but don’t forget about the amazing coincidence involving Woods’ request for an injunction and the subsequent (the next day!) News of the World expose on the golfer’s relationship with alleged mistress Jungers. (That included no nude photos or video.)

Not to mention that the mainstream media has repeatedly reported that alleged nude photos of Woods have been offered to at least one publication in the United States. But the U.S. has strict privacy laws, while England has none on the books at all.

So if News of the World does indeed have photos or video of Woods, based on its victory with the Terry infidelity story, is it reasonable to think that the British tabloid will soon be in front of a High Court judge looking to strike down the earlier injunction preventing it from publish embarrassing material of Woods?

Not to mention other U.K. tabloids, emboldened by precedent set by the High Court ruling?

I certainly wouldn’t doubt it, and you can bet Woods’ U.K. legal team is now on high alert.