The ones here or the great British public?
RYAN GIGGS
- Thread starter AGD
- Start date
The ones here or the great British public?
Indeed, and this is a huge story compared to the usual bile that fills womens magazines and the like.
It makes me despair.
[TW]Fox;19205633 said:
These people make money from making their lives not private. Most of them are media whores.
Giggs had every right to an injunction for a period of time, not for ever though and it was wrong for the girl to be thrown to the lions.
Giggs has history with the media, albeit some time ago now.
Oh, i've not tried to defend peoples obsession. Just giving some reasons for why the papers think its worth printing on every page of their papers.
Your lame understanding of other people on the other hand, no change there!
Couldn't care less what he's done. What i do care about is that i'm not allowed to know what he's done, if i wanted to know. More to the point, i'm not allowed to know it is even him that has done something.
Prohibiting newspapers to print stuff seems a lot like the regimes of China.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 15 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 28,140
- Location
- Liverpool
Reminds me of Gerrard as well. The wives have probably slept around as well so nobody is really bothered apart from self righteous unwashed feminist hippies who read Woman's Own or Heat.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
No, I don't beleive Ryan Giggs makes money from telling people about his sex life.
Why do you think you are so special that you have any right to know other peoples business?
When did this one happen?
The people who are more intrested in reading about some celebrities instead of real news regarding things that are 100 times more important.
I don't care if Ryan has slept with another woman, couldn't care less. People say that as he is in the public eye that they have the right to see in to his private life, but what about HIS rights to have a private life.
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.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 15 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 28,140
- Location
- Liverpool
Gerrard sleeping around? Or his wife sleeping around? Their marriage is pretty much a sham as I've been told by red and blue for years now.
But I meant in the context that there are plenty of reasons why it seems footballers don't always cheat and divorce.
People saying "OMG why are people interested in a footballer's private life?!" are completely missing the point. This was about how awful the current system of super-injunctions is and the problems with the current interpretation of right to privacy and freedom of expression by senior judges.
Public figures use their status and "brand" to get richer. If they are willing to sell themselves as a brand then it should not be falsely advertised. Privacy laws protect hypocrites - imagine if our privacy laws were like those in France? What would politicians get away with whilst pretending to be "family men" in the press to get our votes?
It's also clear that in our current climate where everybody is a publisher on the internet, injunctions and super-injunctions just aren't practical any more.
Public figures use their status and "brand" to get richer. If they are willing to sell themselves as a brand then it should not be falsely advertised. Privacy laws protect hypocrites - imagine if our privacy laws were like those in France? What would politicians get away with whilst pretending to be "family men" in the press to get our votes?
It's also clear that in our current climate where everybody is a publisher on the internet, injunctions and super-injunctions just aren't practical any more.
Last edited:
Any proof of this?
Bringing a third child into the world now in a marriage they are both most likely to be unhappy with? doubt it
[TW]Fox;19205692 said:
If it is public information, public enough to warrant the person actively blocking papers from publishing it, then i think people should be allowed to know.
These celebrities make their money wiht sponsorship deals. Deals they only get with good reputations. If they carry out wild lives i think it is unfair to use the money they get from lying about it on injunctions to block the press telling us they are lying about it.
These footballers would get a lot more respect from me if they just admitted they were lads and liked a bit of fresh totty.
[TW]Fox;19205547 said:
I agree.
But the amount of obsession has been heightened by the super injunction and the furore surrounding it.
Had Giggs just come clean and said "yeah, I shagged a reality TV bimbo" it would have been yesterdays news just after he said it.
Now it's gonna run and he's a laughing stock.
