[Closed] That Ryan Giggs eh?

That [s]Ryan Giggs[/s] Steven Gerrard/Michael Owen eh?

apparently she's known as a bit of a knicker flicker so what's to say he didn't reject her and this is how she's reacted, by acting like a Trollop.

Well that's very sexist and reductive.

emma - what he did isnt the issue. the use of the law to supress disclosure not only of what he did but the fact that it's supressed is what all the hoohah is all about.

its a legal ting about a moral ting.

you could equally say it is about the right of us all to know who he sleeps with but that sounds a lot less noble.
You cannot really discuss it without disclosing it to some degree. X has an injunction preventing us from saying y for example would be a bit pointless.
It is a moral issue about a legal thing though and it is about the weighing up of rights. You need to decide whose rights are most important.
There is much more publicity about this and other famous folk than other issues which may impact on democracy more if links are to be believed. Note how the media is not champing at the bit to get that out there.
Personally I think whether there is a legitimate public interest it should override privacy. Where this is not the case privacy should be upheld. This is basically what the courts have said in this case.

its a legal ting about a moral ting.

Ting an ting! 😀

[img] [/img]

and thats all fine JY, but it should be "in arrears".

Publish and be Damn'd!

If the press cant justify a public interest in court after publishing, then sue their butts off. Financial imperative and case law will determine the line public interest and will move over time as it should.

supression of comment and free expression isnt the solution. certainly not in the current era.

*more to come

* something to touch on here is the protection from litigation of jounralists and commentators in scientific fields.

We all know about Ben goldacre and others (vs osteopaths and homeopathists, big pharma etc) having to withdraw comment for fear of legal assault.

When public interest is properly categorised they can be protected as much as a claimants right to privacy.

Who actually cares.? Is there actually proof that he had an affair anyway - apparently she's known as a bit of a knicker flicker so what's to say he didn't reject her and this is how she's reacted, by acting like a Trollop. He's handled it badly whatever he did or didn't do though. But then he's a footballer so common sense probably isn't a strength.

My guess would be that if she was lying, he'd just be suing her rather than Twitter. He's acted stupidly - if he'd let it run its course it would have been forgotten by now, only in the memory of tabloid readers. By going nuclear on Twitter he's made loads of people who normally wouldn't give a toss interested in his identity and dongle doings, opening himself up to even more ridicule.

and thats all fine JY, but it should be "in arrears".

its not a ruined life though. There is mental trauma, periods of difficulty, but ultimately it's quite clear he has been wronged and his reputation can be restored. He is suing and shall clean up. The more who do (and the mor epunitve the courts get) the more the press will hold their tongue.

I admit I was astonished at the way the pres swent after him. There's a certain cuplability in the behaviour of the police force who did nothing to hold back the press, it was the attorney general who had to raise his voice. That's bad policing as much as anything.

It is a little like saying I am going to kick the shit out of you now sue me for damages if it is not justified

Its always easier to ask for forgiveness than permission 😉

😆
wise words
How do you think it is working for him then with the wife 😉

So, why CTB?

any noises of divorce yet?

I wager my jaunty hat that she stands by him for at least 12 months.

its a legal ting about a moral ting.

Well that's very sexist and reductive.

if he'd let it run its course it would have been forgotten by now,

I'm not sure Imogen Thomas is the gold digger some are making her out to be. The report I heard went along the lines of:

Newspaper discloses it's going to run a piece to expose the Giggs / Thomas affair
Thomas informs Giggs
Giggs applies for and gets superinjunction banning the press from reporting his name
Newspaper runs story about Thomas and unnamed prem footballer instead (because she couldn't / didn't get a similar superinjunction)
Everyone assumed it was Thomas kiss and telling
She now wants to put her side across (that she didn't blab / isn't blackmailing him) but couldn't because there's a superinjunction.

Admittedly, it was Max Clifford who was reported for most of that.....

Is he actually guilty? Or is it only [b]claimed[/b] he pulled a better-looking bird than Wayne Rooney?
I don't give a rat's ass who they sleep with as long as my missus isn't involved. Honestly, despite being a bit drunk.

Given that "footballer has affair with minor cleb" is such a boring news story, you really wonder why he went down this route. I reckon he is really gay and this is an elaborate smoke screen. If you never hear about this again, it's because it's true and there is a HYPER INJUNCTION on it.

Given that "footballer has affair with minor cleb" is such a boring news story, you really wonder why he went down this route. I reckon he is really gay and this is an elaborate smoke screen. If you never hear about this again, it's because it's true and there is a HYPER INJUNCTION on it.

If I were a moderator I'd remove that comment just to freak you out.

I assume you are comfortable then with the treatment of the Bristol landlord in the murder case and how the press treated him?

she is so frickin FIT tho - the jammy bastard

i think the point about the landlord is a big one after watching this
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b011dl62 ]mail & murdoch group print racist hate story despite knowing it was a lie and push it through the courts way beyond most people means[/url]
the guy would never have had the chance to stick up for himself if the lawyer wasnt working for free the papers made it impossible

the media in this country is out of control its only those with money taht can take on the murdochs/mail of this world,
i also remember seeing a good select comittee on parliament channel, the guardian talking about fighting barclays in the courts and ian hislop and private eye saying that protracted legal battles were so hideously expensive that even when they knew they were telling the truth they had to be selective in how many court battles they could afford at once

thats 2 problems, how to make the law equal for everyone, currently its massively skewed in favour of the rich

and how to limit the lies of the press without hurting free speach

also whats this about giles corren facing impisonment for outing another philandering footballer??

mail & murdoch group print racist hate story despite knowing it was a lie.....

On what grounds do you claim that it was a "racist hate story" ? I know of no evidence which suggests this to be true. And indeed if it is true and there is evidence to back it up, then the Mail and the Sun would most certainly have faced prosecution for what is an extremely serious offence.

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). And as Britain's top libel specialists, I wouldn't be surprised if their fee exceeded the £77.500 they secured their client - "English libel costs are estimated to be 140 times greater than the average in mainland Europe". It's pretty clear they would not have taken the case on, had they thought there was no chance that they would get paid.

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'm not sure Imogen Thomas is the gold digger some are making her out to be.

The judge noted that evidence before the court on 14 April "appeared strongly to suggest that the claimant [the anonymous footballer] was being blackmailed"(Guardian, 23/5/11)

According to court documents, which have been argued in front of a High Court judge, Imogen Thomas was trying to blackmail Giggs. When he didn't come up with a payment, she went to The Sun. For her now to claim that she's having her rights infringed is disingenuous at best.

A gold-digger versus an adulterer? They're both in the wrong, but the crucial difference is that what he's done is a private issue, whereas what she's alleged to have done is a criminal offence.

Rather amusingly, The Daily Mash ran [url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/sport/sport-headlines/giggs-deserves-knighthood-for-services-to-not-behaving-like-a-footballer-201104143723/ ]this story[/url] a little while ago which would now seem to be somewhat premature...

They could run [url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/celebrity/footballer-had-sex-201105243856/ ] this story[/url] pretty much every day without much editing being needed...

😉

she is so frickin FIT tho - the jammy bastard

This is the most important bit of the story as far as I'm concerned 🙂

Just googled her images, poor thing needs a cuddle.

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

Ref Giggs' wife, why would she stand by her adulterous, millionaire footballer husband who's on about £4million a year??

Oh, hang on..............

Mrs Ryan Giggs isn't a munter ether:
[img] [/img]

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).

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

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.

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.

[img] [/img]

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

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 ?

I'll be honest, i don't care what happened as long as he is playing tonight!

is it a home game or are they playing away......... 😉

Would you mind scoring a couple if you were him?

Is the bloke Count von Count? Why fit birds go for him is a mystery? 1, aaahhhh, 2 ahaahhh, 3 aahhhh ....

[img] http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhZrM1_vqiCSAEUqF6U8WAyMIblp1-z6Y8u3y_HIghUngoepxmJQ [/img]

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

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.