Rather amusingly, The Daily Mash ran this story a little while ago which would now seem to be somewhat premature...
They could run this story pretty much every day without much editing being needed...
Chat Forum
[closed]
That Ryan Giggs eh?
-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
she is so frickin FIT tho - the jammy bastard
This is the most important bit of the story as far as I'm concerned
Posted 1 year ago # -
Just googled her images, poor thing needs a cuddle.
Posted 1 year ago # -
he got to jump some fit bird who he promised the world to; but at least he didn't pay for sex of a barely legal lithuanian prossie whilst his missus was up the duff. rooney/croutch!!!
high five gigs
Posted 1 year ago # -
Ref Giggs' wife, why would she stand by her adulterous, millionaire footballer husband who's on about £4million a year??
Oh, hang on..............
Posted 1 year ago # -
Mrs Ryan Giggs isn't a munter ether:
Posted 1 year ago # -
the guy would never have had the chance to stick up for himself if the lawyer wasnt working for free.
That is false, his lawyers worked on a 'Conditional Fee Agreement' (no win no fee basis).
Think the point about free is the defendant did not pay for his defence ergot it was free for the defendant to go to trial. When I dont pay for something I usually call it free what about you?
As you note libel is both expensive and difficult to prove and as very few of us have 100k + to defend our good name Kimbers 2 conclusions would seem reasonable.
The power of the press v the power of an individual is somewhat dispropotionate. In fact you could put a credible case forward that even parliament is afraid to piss the press off too much lest they change sides and use unfavourable editorials to try and bring about a change of governmnet. This is why all party leaders have courted the support of Murdoch recently and another argument for having unelected judges making these rulings.
the press are immensley powerful and can be a check on government, uphold democracy and lead to openess. They can also be a bunch of corrupt shysters happy to publish lies and destroy people lifes to sell papers.Posted 1 year ago # -
I think that this whole story is more about newspaper owners protecting their profits and political power that anything else.
These stories sell newspapers, that's why they are printed on the front pages regardless if they are important or not. If newspapers can't print these types of stories but social media companies can let the stories develop on their websites (as happened with Giggs/Thomas on twitter etc). Newspapers will see their influence undermined as they lose circulation numbers and advertising revenue falls. Profits will then be eroded and the end users turn more and more to other media platforms making newspapers redundant. IMO
Posted 1 year ago # -
piha i read this whole screed to have you beat me to my point. This case is entirely about the tabloids right to make money.
The footballer as I understand it has a wife and children who will be put through torment and abuse by the media frenzy the judge claims to be protecting them with the injunction which is still in force!
The use of injunctions to and libel to stifle science and fair public interest criticism is really something that needs to be explored and in my view changed. The media don't seem that wound up by peoples health and lives being put at risk to protect commercial reputations but stop them printing a sex scandal and is mass protest bought MP's abusing parliamentary privilege and a coordinated mass contempt of court.
Posted 1 year ago # -
The footballer as I understand it has a wife and children who will be put through torment and abuse by the media frenzy the judge claims to be protecting them with the injunction which is still in force!
The injunction prevents Imogen Thomas and The Sun from publishing undoubtedly salacious stories (inevitably accompanied by barely-clad pictures of said 'stunna'). This, I think, is a good thing.
The story will carry on for a few days yet, but if the injunction remains in place, it will die away - Lady Gaga will eviscerate an iguana on stage, George Michael and/or Charlie Sheen will drive a double-decker into a shopping centre.....something else in celebland will come along. This story is already dying, and The Sun are seeing their investment diminishing in value by the hour. They'll already have spent a huge amount in legal fees and in payments to Imogen Thomas, but now they can't capitalise.
How my heart bleeds for the Murdoch empire.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Posted 1 year ago # -
If you are going to accuse the press of making false and inaccurate statements, then it's perhaps not a good idea to make false and inaccurate statements in the same post ?
i stand by my statement; the papers ran with this story because they are happy to reinforce the opinion that immigrants are untrustworthy, i may be generalising here but imo its true
and he didnt pay therefore its free, as you pointed out the legal system is a cash cow for those on the inside and it needs reforming
Posted 1 year ago # -
i stand by my statement; the papers ran with this story because they are happy to reinforce the opinion that immigrants are untrustworthy, i may be generalising here but imo its true
But your statement is false - the very thing you accuse the press of. In the link you provide not once does the plaintiff or his lawyer make the allegation that this was a "race hate story".
You have taken it upon yourself, in good ol' Guardian reader tradition, to automatically make knee-jerk, wild, and completely baseless, allegations of "racism" when a non-white person is the victim of an injustice.
To suggest that the Daily Mail and the Sun would only vilified someone because they were non-white, and that they would not equally vilified a white person, is absurd.
And however much you and JY try to spin it, your claim that "the guy would never have had the chance to stick up for himself if the lawyer wasnt working for free" is false. The guy would never have had the chance to stick up for himself if the lawyer wasn't working for a Conditional Fee Agreement.
The lawyer wasn't "working for free" as you claim at all, in the same way that he wouldn't have been working for free if a philanthropist had offered to pay the plaintiff's legal costs.
Of course none of your false and inaccurate statements would have mattered very much if it hadn't been for the fact that the purpose of your post was to demand the end of false and inaccurate statements by the press. And if it wasn't for the fact that knee-jerk "it's racism" reaction by Guardian readers who are so quick to condemn Daily Mail readers of their knee-jerk reactions, didn't wind me up. You are a Guardian reader aren't you kimbers ?
Posted 1 year ago # -
I'll be honest, i don't care what happened as long as he is playing tonight!
Posted 1 year ago # -
is it a home game or are they playing away.........
Posted 1 year ago # -
Would you mind scoring a couple if you were him?
Posted 1 year ago # -
Is the bloke Count von Count? Why fit birds go for him is a mystery? 1, aaahhhh, 2 ahaahhh, 3 aahhhh ....
Posted 1 year ago # -
I fail to see why the paper he reads has any real bearing on this issue - perhaps it displays your own [oft quoted] bias and hatred of guaridan [actually intentional] reading lefties rather than have any real bearing on this story.
the next issue over free is just semantics/pedantic
the guy would never have had the chance to stick up for himself if the lawyer wasnt working for free
whilst this would have been better worded the meaning [ though clumsy] is quite clear.
Essentially if the defendant paid the fees before trial then the case would have not gone to trial. As he did not pay these fees [it was free]he was working for the defendant for free [in the sense he did not pay for his services]. I suspect you dont need to be a Guardian reader to think this but you may need to be a trotsky guradian hating pseudo troll to get so uppitty about it.Posted 1 year ago # -
Posted 1 year ago #
-
Junkyard - Member
I fail to see why the paper he reads has any real bearing on this issue - perhaps it displays your own [oft quoted] bias and hatred of guaridan [actually intentional] reading lefties rather than have any real bearing on this story.
I love it.......the hypocrisy and inconsistency of Guardian readers !Kimbers was attacking the behaviour of the Daily Mail and the Sun and press in general, whilst referring to the Guardian in a positive manner, I think therefore what paper he reads does indeed carry some bearing. Also the newspaper someone reads often reflects their attitude, something which you TJY, apparently agree with :
Junkyard - Member
I have no wish to engage with you, your view is contemptabile and you appear to be lacking in some basic attributes of humanity such as compassion and understanding. I pity you and your Daily Mail world view.
The relevance in this case is that kimbers made false allegations concerning a "racist hate story"........Guardian readers are notoriously PC and imagine racism where it just doesn't exist, and typically whenever a non-white person is a victim of an injustice.
But I get your point, slag off Daily Mail readers at every conceivable opportunity, but never ever criticise the extremism of Guardian readers. The problem occurs because I simple don't accept that.
And btw with reference to your amusing "trotsky guradian hating pseudo troll" comment, it's perhaps worth pointing out that the Guardian is highly likely to appeal to the trotskyite PC brigade, despite lacking any simular appeal to tankies like me.......as trots like to call us.
Posted 1 year ago # -
ernie_lynch is you a tankie?
Posted 1 year ago # -
Top stalking BTW even I have no idea from which thread those wise words come - who ws it at? I think , that would obviously be suggesting someone is right wing and narrow minded rather than suggesting they read the daily mail per se. Hey you clutch at straws....they are organic ones from Waitrose aren't they
I cant comment on the story directly but your view about lefties and percieved racism has some merit/truth in it.
tankies? having googled it does not sound like you. You are a prgamatist.
i assume even you prefer the guradian to the Murdock machine though it may be asking you which turd is the least smelly.
I dont read the guardian - though I have suggested I do a few times for comedy affect. I get all my news from Radio 4 so obviously I am not middle class Posted 1 year ago # -
Guardian readers are notoriously PC and imagine racism where it just doesn't exist, and typically whenever a non-white person is a victim of an injustice.
But I get your point, slag off Daily Mail readers at every conceivable opportunity, but never ever criticise the extremism of Guardian readers.
Do you never got bored with your own weird contrary political trolling?
Posted 1 year ago # -
Not stalking, I'm surprised how many people can't use the search facilities on here. Advanced search of "Daily Mail" under the username "Junkyard" is all that was required. There was of course a lot more examples, but I didn't want to rub it in - I'm nice like that
And yes I read the Guardian. But I am as untypical a Guardian reader as you're ever likely to get. And as for the label "tankie", it's one which I wear with cheerful pride, when accused being one by a trot
Posted 1 year ago # -
Posted 1 year ago # -
He's only human I guess...
Posted 1 year ago # -
<3
Posted 1 year ago # -
He's only human I guess...
talk about damning men with faint praise - he's a typical footballing knob, couldn't keep it in his trousers = so he either shouldn't have got married or should know better at his age.Then to use a super-injunction to stifle the press, whilst the girl couldn't afford it, was asking for the backlash he's getting.
The issue is that you can't legislate against salacious gossip when your jurisdiction doesn't cover t'internet which has servers all over the world.
Posted 1 year ago # -
The penny dropped after I posted [ well on the way home ] and with all seriousness thank you for generosity I suspect there are a lot.
can i have an assist elfin?
Posted 1 year ago # -
xcstu - Member
He's only human I guess...
Honeydews ...
Posted 1 year ago # -
^^^She clearly needs plenty of support^^^
Posted 1 year ago # -
Last night Giggs revealed he really likes living in Manchester but occasionally does miss Wales
Posted 1 year ago # -
On the front page of today's Scum, picture of Giggs' slut wearing a Man U top, skimpy white shorts, & a headline that says she thought that Giggs wanted to marry her.....FFS
Disclaimer: I didn't buy the Scum, saw it on the shelves in WH Smith at lunchtime.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Gary_C - Member
On the front page of today's Scum, picture of Giggs' slut wearing a Man U top, skimpy white shorts, & a headline that says she thought that Giggs wanted to marry her.....FFS
So if you are interested here ...
Daily mail - the best news in the world
Giggs deserves it put it this way since he was prepared to take the risks by boning around. LOL! Worst case is that he refuses to pay after boning her. What a tight git. I mean earning millions and yet refuse to pay. Mean bar-stewart. So a millionaire still wants to have a free meal ehhh?
Posted 1 year ago # -
MAN UTD SQUAD: MIDFIELDERS:
Owen Hargreaves
Anderson
A well known Premiership footballer
Park Ji-Sung
Michael Carrick
Nani
Paul Scholes
Darren FletcherPosted 1 year ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
