RYAN GIGGS

[Ballz]

I find it highly amusing that mr clean living himself will do anything to keep his name out of the news. I look forward to next season

In saying that, if that (below) was offering it on a plate, Id be balls deep too!


*** No hotlinking ****

 

[Robbo]

They should actually just ban footballers from getting married, that would solve half the problem.

 

[Valentino]

Why do you think you are so special that you have any right to know other peoples business?

Are you one of these people, that when you see a new CCTV camera being put up you say "If you're not doing anything wrong then you've got nothing to worry about"?

 

[Tummy]

Remember a lot of footballers are happily married and family men. The horrible churnalists don't want us to know this though.

 

[Purdy]

I find it highly amusing that mr clean living himself will do anything to keep his name out of the news. I look forward to next season

In saying that, if that (below) was offering it on a plate, Id be balls deep too!


[ img]http://blogs.coventrytelegraph.net/ladslounge/Imogen-Thomas-calendar2.jpg[/img]

Even if you were married =/ ?

 

[[TW]Fox]

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.

Why should what somebody does in their own bedroom be public information?

How about we publish your sex life on the front page of a newspaper? Would you like that?

Are you one of these people, that when you see a new CCTV camera being put up you say "If you're not doing anything wrong then you've got nothing to worry about"?

I'm advocating greater privacy for people, you are advocating less privacy, then you ask me that? How bizarre.

Personally my own moral standpoint is that I cannot stand infidelity and think anyone who cheats is, frankly, a ****. But thats my personal viewpoint and it doesn't mean I think that anyone who acts contrary to my own personal view deserves to have it publicised. Cheating isn't illegal.

It is nothing to do with us and I find it a real shame that many people in this thread think it is something to do with us.

 

[semi-pro waster]

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.

It's a public forum but owned by a private individual. The legal status of people mentioning the names of the subjects of (super)injunctions is still somewhat unclear so until and unless it is clarified the prudent thing to do is to not allow it as it may constitute publishing which is breaking the superinjunction. If we have caselaw or further legislation to the effect that no-one can or will be held accountable for publishing details then I'd guess there may be a rethink of policy.

It's always been unlikely that the person who has a superinjunction would go after all the people who break it if they are numerous but it is still a choice of the site owner whether they do or do not want to encourage such activities.

 

[AGD]

So [TW]Fox, how do you resolve the case where someone is privately acting in a way which contradicts their brand image which is making them money?

 

[[TW]Fox]

So [TW]Fox, how do you resolve the case where someone is privately acting in a way which contradicts their brand image which is making them money?

You don't 'resolve' it. Marketing is about perception - if the actions of the individual are not known, the perception given by the marketing remains intact anyway.

It is therefore a private matter between the individual concerned and the stakeholders involved - not the press and the gossip mag buyers.

Besides, I'm pretty sure Giggs doesn't have a multimillion pound advertising contract with Relate anyway.

 

[Vonhelmet]

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.

While I don't really care who he was sleeping with (footballer has affair! Stop the presses!) I think it's important that the injunctions be opposed as at present they are effectively allowing privacy law to be written by whoever has the deepest pockets.

I do sympathise with him, insofar as he does have a right to privacy. He does not, however, have a right to pay for the law to work in his favour.

 

[CliffyBiro]

I'd hit it.

Imogen that is, not Giggs.

Injunction was pointless. I knew who it was ages ago via Twitter.

 

[Participant]

We shouldn't have a right to know, but they shouldn't have a right for us not to know, either.

It's like this boss of RBS being pulled up over having it off with some broad that wasn't his wife. And? Are we concerned that he'll carry a zero somewhere on his loan book just because his wife is ugly and not doing the business in the bedroom? It should work in his favour if anything.

Public interest is just a mask phrase for public voyeurism.

 

[AGD]

You don't 'resolve' it. Marketing is about perception - if the actions of the individual are not known, the perception given by the marketing remains intact anyway.

It is therefore a private matter between the individual concerned and the stakeholders involved - not the press and the gossip mag buyers.

Besides, I'm pretty sure Giggs doesn't have a multimillion pound advertising contract with Relate anyway.

This is not about ryan giggs!

So what you are saying is that the law should protect people who get rich by lying to the public? And what about when politicians are hyprocrites? Is that different?

 

[Deleted member 651465]

I knew her before big brother. Not well mind, but I was lol'ing when I heard she'd done the business with Giggsy.

 

[sigma]

I'd hit it.

Imogen that is, not Giggs.

Injunction was pointless. I knew who it was ages ago via Twitter.

You should at least admit that you would consider Giggs for a split second though, I think most people would.

 

[majestyk]

Why was Giggs given a heads up about The Sun article, giving him time to get the injunction ? Max Mosely new nothing about the NOTW sting until they published it.

 

[[TW]Fox]

This is not about ryan giggs!

The thread title is 'Ryan Giggs'.

So what you are saying is that the law should protect people who get rich by lying to the public?

You can tell this is in GD, can't you. I've made no mention of law. I'm just whinging about how pathetic I think societies unhealthy interest in the private lives of people they don't know is.

You are grossly oversimplyfying things anyway. Last time I checked Giggs didn't run an advertising campaign for a company using the tag 'Buy this product - because I don't cheat on my wife' therefore he hasn't got rich by lying to the public at all.

 

[Greenlizard0]

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

Cheating around =/ unhappy marriage. And no smoke without fire eh?

Still all beside the point I was making above.

 

[Vonhelmet]

You are grossly oversimplyfying things anyway. Last time I checked Giggs didn't run an advertising campaign for a company using the tag 'Buy this product - because I don't cheat on my wife' therefore he hasn't got rich by lying to the public at all.

I think you're oversimplifying things if you don't think that at some stage an advertising exec has chosen Giggs as their man on the basis of his clean image.

 

[semi-pro waster]

You are grossly oversimplyfying things anyway. Last time I checked Giggs didn't run an advertising campaign for a company using the tag 'Buy this product - because I don't cheat on my wife' therefore he hasn't got rich by lying to the public at all.

It looks like you're also oversimplifying there - you don't need to explicitly state something to trade on the image. It's not the same as lying outright perhaps but then again it's not entirely truthful either to omit details which would undermine the image.