RYAN GIGGS

dowie · 23 May 2011 at 20:04

Morba said:
Wasn't it a case that he only had it for the time that was needed for him to sort the paternity out and deal with his family, then it was released?
Thats fair enough in my mind.

A ban on priting so he can inform family so they don't find out in the news is as far as it should go though.

Nope

He withdrew it himself and he's publicly stated that he was embarrassed by it.

The Trafigura case is another ridicules one - its a very legitimate story and doesn't concern an individual's privacy.

Calabi · 23 May 2011 at 20:05

I only found out today. Its great what you can do if you rich.

sanaxe1 · 23 May 2011 at 20:07

Calabi said:
I only found out today. Its great what you can do if you rich.

Well no normal person would have there private lives broadcast to millions of strangers so they have no need.

oli collett · 23 May 2011 at 20:10

Mr Jack said:
The courts have not made law; that's just tabloid nonsense. They are upholding it and the law includes a right to privacy, unfortunately what that right is and how it is to be balanced against other considerations has not been defined. That leaves Judges to interpret the law as best they can - as always. This isn't the result of bad decisions by judges, it's the result of a flaw in the existing law.

What MPs should do is introduce a bill giving a solid legal framework inside which privacy is properly addressed and balanced against other concerns. Arbitrarily overriding the judicary instead is very bad policy.

And Judges have a lot more information to go on than an MP who is trying to make a name for himself.

dowie said:
Putting a blanket ban on any reporting isn't legitimate at all IMHO. He had an affair and that in itself raised questions of his own integrity - it was extremely hypocritical of him to take out an injunction.

If a story is true and doesn't breach national security then I don't see why the press should have any restrictions on publishing. The US has very few restrictions on the press and yet their tabloids aren't nearly as bad as ours when it comes to publishing celeb gossip/stories about affairs. Our entire legal system needs to be overhauled from privacy laws to our ridicules libel laws.

Libel laws are another matter entirely. As for injunctions, (putting aside the daft term superinjunctions) - can you not think of other examples where they might be necassary, outside of national security? For example in cases of kidnappings, blackmail, sexual assault etc?

The biggest problem I see with our privacy laws is that it you have to have plenty of cash to use them. That's not right.

As for the Giggs case itself, I've found it incredibly frustrating that the media have manipulated this whole thing into a case of freedom of speech, with everyone forgetting just how readily the UK media have had a disregard for peoples privacy over the decades. They don't care about people who end up on the front pages, the affects that has on their personal lives, and whether their reporting could end up placing other peoples lives in danger. That is not a situation I'm comfortable with.

Kazz · 23 May 2011 at 20:17

Ironic commenting on this topic, I know, but...

I seriously couldn't give a rats ass about this. A lot of people I know seem to be caught up in the hype (is hype the right word? drama? I dunno). So allegedly Mr Giggs dipped his stick in some sticky toffee pudding? whoop dee doo.

Finished now.

dowie · 23 May 2011 at 20:39

oli collett said:
Libel laws are another matter entirely. As for injunctions, (putting aside the daft term superinjunctions) - can you not think of other examples where they might be necassary, outside of national security? For example in cases of kidnappings, blackmail, sexual assault etc?

I'd be interested in real life examples of cases where the any of the above has been a major problem within the USA?

Essentially I'm just advocating that we become more aligned with their take on freedom of speech.

[TFU] Thegoon84 · 23 May 2011 at 20:42

I've met Imogen loads of times on a night out.... bit of ignorant **** tbh! But hey we all knew it was him ages ago..... She's a **** he's rich and Welsh so it was always gona happen!

Dabbles · 23 May 2011 at 20:43

sanaxe1 said:
Well no normal person would have there private lives broadcast to millions of strangers so they have no need.

These people make a fortune BY their personal lives (at least their 'squeaky clean' image) being played out to the public. Give and take tbh. I don't care what Giggs does. I don't care who he bones or what shaving cream he wears. I like to watch him play football as he's very good at it, but that's where it ends.

Some people, however (those that will buy his shaving cream) are interested in more than just his football and he needs to learn (as do a lot of other public figures) that those people have spending power and will buy the tabloids and whatever magazine with details of his sordid affair in them.

[TW]Fox · 23 May 2011 at 20:46

Dabbles said:
These people make a fortune BY their personal lives (at least their 'squeaky clean' image) being played out to the public.

I beleive Mr Giggs made his particular fortune with an employment contract for a football club. I'd be suprised if his other earnings have eclipsed this.

Rob_J · 23 May 2011 at 20:46

If it weren't for the fact that the majority of the British public are 'celebrity obsessed', a story like this wouldn't even make it in to the 'news'.

Dabbles · 23 May 2011 at 20:47

[TW]Fox;19207252 said:
I beleive Mr Giggs made his particular fortune with an employment contract for a football club. I'd be suprised if his other earnings have eclipsed this.

Most top footballers make amazing amounts of money from sponsorship deals, which very often rely on their 'clean' image.

lttlejoe · 23 May 2011 at 20:49

Morba said:
He makes money based on people being interested in his life.
If you want to be someone who takes advantage of this then you need to understand there is a flip side to the coin.

That makes sense to me, don't understand why it doesn't to you.

No he doesn't!

He makes money by his footballing skills... the problem is that people think they also have a right to poke their noses into other people's private lives...which in fact they don't !

No1newts · 23 May 2011 at 20:52

Robbie G said:
Ryan I hope she was worth all the hoo-ha.

She's fugly so I would say not

Its somewhat ironic considering a few weeks ago I was espousing how great Giggs was and a true model professional. He's just another little spoilt **** who can't keep it in his pants. I don't even know why it shocks me anymore :rolleyes:

Greenlizard0 · 23 May 2011 at 20:55

That's what disappoints me as well. He really was the last gentleman of a different era, and still played now. Quiet, respectable etc.

Ah well, better than a granny I suppose.

Participant · 23 May 2011 at 20:56

No1newts said:
She's fugly so I would say not

Its somewhat ironic considering a few weeks ago I was espousing how great Giggs was and a true model professional.

I'd already gathered that he wasn't that since he beat up his Hollioaks girlfriend, Davinia Taylor, years ago. No, I didn't buy the paper or particularly care

. Was just one of those things you hear about.

Greenlizard0 said:
That's what disappoints me as well. He really was the last gentleman of a different era

Not really.

flibbage0 · 23 May 2011 at 21:02

Robbie G said:
I'd already gathered that he wasn't that since he beat up his Hollioaks girlfriend, Davinia Taylor, years ago. No, I didn't buy the paper or particularly care . Was just one of those things you hear about.

Not really.

Well that was the impression that most people had.

oli collett · 23 May 2011 at 21:04

dowie said:
I'd be interested in real life examples of cases where the any of the above has been a major problem within the USA?

Essentially I'm just advocating that we become more aligned with their take on freedom of speech.

I don't know a great deal about US law, but are you sure that in such cases you couldn't obtain an injunction? Either way, kidnapping laws are very different in the US, the main one being the freezing of assets of those involved with the kidnapping. Not sure about the laws relating to blackmail.

Greebo · 23 May 2011 at 21:09

[TW]Fox;19205561 said:
I also think Tiger's personal life is no business of ours as well. He lost sponsorships, in the same way Giggs will - but he lost them because of the people who care about the private lives of people they will never, ever know.

If we were not so concerned with the lives of others, nobody would have been interested in Woods personal life and he'd therefore not have lost any sponsorship.

Slightly different. Tiger's PR team made his image as the perfect family man with pictures and videos of him and his children in soft focus all the time which enable him to pick up £20 to £30m a year in sponsorship when in fact his marriage was amess and he paid for cheap hookers all the time. That;s fair game.

Ryan Giggs I;m not so sure about however he made a big thing about winning "Father of the Year" and obviously made money on the back of it from sponsorship so perhaps also fair since if your are having affairs, how can you cash in on been "Father of the Year"?

Participant · 23 May 2011 at 21:12

flibbage0 said:
Well that was the impression that most people had.

Yep.

Greebo · 23 May 2011 at 21:13

[TW]Fox;19207252 said:
I beleive Mr Giggs made his particular fortune with an employment contract for a football club. I'd be suprised if his other earnings have eclipsed this.

That's the start. We are not quite with the Americans yet who might have a £5m contract but make £30m for advertising but some of the highest profile players in this country are not far off.

Take David Beckham. He went for the money with a £5m wages deal with LA galaxy but makes £12m a year from sponsership on top.

Advertising is were the real money is been a top football player.

ED£IT: In fact google him. He was making millions while Beckham was on loan to Preston North End with record breaking advertising deals.