RYAN GIGGS

AGD · 23 May 2011 at 17:08

Sorry, really need to get that out of my system!

OcUK will censor us no longer!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13503847

Participant · 23 May 2011 at 17:10

Ryan I hope she was worth all the hoo-ha.

J-FRO · 23 May 2011 at 17:10

Good old fashioned parliamentary privilege eh?

Robbo · 23 May 2011 at 17:10

Really? I had no idea.

TheCenturion · 23 May 2011 at 17:11

In before the lock??

Seriously though, shame on Ryan and shame on her for the way that this has panned out

[TW]Fox · 23 May 2011 at 17:11

It is a pathetic and damning indictment on society that enough people give a stuff what somebody they have never met does that this has become an issue as big as it is.

Without the nosey, ridiculous gossip obsessed people that fuel the newspapers burning desire for this sort of trash news, nobody would have needed a super injunction in the first place.

What business of us is it who he sleeps with anyway? Why do we even care?

Cosimo · 23 May 2011 at 17:11

Finally UK's worst keep secret is out. Thank god it’s now over or is it.

Yas786 · 23 May 2011 at 17:11

LOL worst case of trying to hide his name...everyone just about knew it was him....i found out last week myself.

Tut tut tut Ryan naughty naughty boy...how could you cheat on your wife, who incidentally is a much better looking woman than that skank Imogen....oh well play with fire and you will get burned by the fire...

TheCenturion · 23 May 2011 at 17:12

[TW]Fox;19205520 said:
It is a pathetic and damning indictment on society that enough people give a stuff what somebody they have never met does that this has become an issue as big as it is.

Without the nosey, ridiculous gossip obsessed people that fuel the newspapers burning desire for this sort of trash news, nobody would have needed a super injunction in the first place.

What business of us is it who he sleeps with anyway? Why do we even care?

Cos she's really hotttt (not really

)

I agree with you otherwise

stulid · 23 May 2011 at 17:12

Watched the MP deliberately shout his name out on the tv earlier, then all the news channels cleverly saying he said it.

sigma · 23 May 2011 at 17:13

Gyan Riggs?

Mr Jack · 23 May 2011 at 17:13

I'm really not sure I agree with this use of parliamentary privilege. The MP is essentially using it to override a court decision he disagrees with; that is surely not good.

Morba · 23 May 2011 at 17:13

[TW]Fox;19205520 said:
What business of us is it who he sleeps with anyway? Why do we even care?

He sells products for Man Yoo and other companies based on his image. So its understandable that people care.

Do you think the same for Tiger Woods or do you understand why he has lost a lot of sponsorship?

Aero · 23 May 2011 at 17:13

/big who cares

[TW]Fox · 23 May 2011 at 17:14

It just amazes me. All the things going on in the world and the entire country is literally obsessed with which footballer slept with a reality TV star.

I cannot think of anything more pathetic.

Django x2 · 23 May 2011 at 17:14

OcUK should never really have been able to silence us anyway. Public forum of which thousands of members. Did they think they would become privvy to share our information when Ryan Giggs got upset that we had mentioned his name. It was never going to end any other way.

I'm with Fox tho, there are far far more important things going on in the world other than some overpaid pig skin kicking nonce, like, what car shall I buy next, for example

bam0 · 23 May 2011 at 17:15

[TW]Fox;19205520 said:
It is a pathetic and damning indictment on society that enough people give a stuff what somebody they have never met does that this has become an issue as big as it is.

Without the nosey, ridiculous gossip obsessed people that fuel the newspapers burning desire for this sort of trash news, nobody would have needed a super injunction in the first place.

What business of us is it who he sleeps with anyway? Why do we even care?

The issue isn't content, it's the gagging of the press. There was the same outcry a couple of years ago with the super injunction Trafigura got. I might not really care about this particular case but I care about the principle.

J-FRO · 23 May 2011 at 17:15

Would have been more interesting if we were all mislead and it was actually Ferguson.

Rameses · 23 May 2011 at 17:15

[TW]Fox;19205520 said:
It is a pathetic and damning indictment on society that enough people give a stuff what somebody they have never met does that this has become an issue as big as it is.

Without the nosey, ridiculous gossip obsessed people that fuel the newspapers burning desire for this sort of trash news, nobody would have needed a super injunction in the first place.

What business of us is it who he sleeps with anyway? Why do we even care?

Unfortunately its ingrained in us as a society. It isn't going to change, its why we have those rag papers, awful magazines, Loose Women, Jeremy Kyle! etc

Sad truth.

Yas786 · 23 May 2011 at 17:15

[TW]Fox;19205520 said:
It is a pathetic and damning indictment on society that enough people give a stuff what somebody they have never met does that this has become an issue as big as it is.

Without the nosey, ridiculous gossip obsessed people that fuel the newspapers burning desire for this sort of trash news, nobody would have needed a super injunction in the first place.

What business of us is it who he sleeps with anyway? Why do we even care?

No its a pathetic and damning indictment that some over paid muppet thought he could get away with keeping this a secret with a super injunction....personally i couldnt give a toss who it was but what bothers me is that because he has so much money to throw around that for him it was easy to get the super injunction whereas the woman involved couldnt....makes a bloody mockery of our system in all honesty.

Personally speaking it would have been better for him to admit to it and publicly apologise to his wife and kids or better still pay the money grabbing wench and buy her silence...either way it would have been better than what is happening now.