RYAN GIGGS

[TW]Fox · 23 May 2011 at 17:15

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

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.

sigma · 23 May 2011 at 17:15

Giggs is a bit of a God amongst men though, in fairness.

meghatronic · 23 May 2011 at 17:16

Parliamentary privilege for the win?

[TW]Fox · 23 May 2011 at 17:16

Spawn said:
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

Whilst I agree the injunction was ridiculous, why should he even have needed one? Why should he have to defend himself from the gossiping morons in the first place?

Last time I checked, cheating on your wife was legal. Therefore it is of no business to anyone but him, his wife and Imogen. But it turns into everyones business because half of us have lives so empty we have to get off on the gossip of people we've never met, spoken to or otherwise had any involvement with whatsoever.

Rameses · 23 May 2011 at 17:17

sigma said:
Giggs is a bit of a God amongst men though, in fairness.

TheCenturion · 23 May 2011 at 17:17

[TW]Fox;19205573 said:
Whilst I agree the injunction was ridiculous, why should he even have needed one? Why should he have to defend himself from the gossiping morons in the first place?

You have to remember though that as a footballer, he's a professional role model for many kids and young people.

Greenlizard0 · 23 May 2011 at 17:18

[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?

Of course the worst thing about it is that one day, there will be something that we do need to know about and there'll be stupid precedents set.

Ryan was taken to the cleaners by his lawyers on this one. He and his past actions now gotten far more attention over something that has failed so miserably - and I'm not talking about his marriage.

Cosimo · 23 May 2011 at 17:18

sigma said:
Giggs is a bit of a God amongst men though, in fairness.

.... and amongst the odd woman or two.

Yas786 · 23 May 2011 at 17:18

[TW]Fox;19205573 said:
Whilst I agree the injunction was ridiculous, why should he even have needed one? Why should he have to defend himself from the gossiping morons in the first place?

Indeed and what you say is correct...i guess thats something he only knows the answer to...but taking a wild guess...probably due to the very real fact that he will lose his sponsorship deals because of this uproar and the way hes conducted himself in the past few weeks.

[TW]Fox · 23 May 2011 at 17:18

TheCenturion said:
You have to remember though that as a footballer, he's a professional role model for many kids and young people.

His private life wouldn't be in the news if nobody cared, therefore it wouldn't affect his position as such.

90% of people care about this not because of his 'position as a role model what will the kids think of' but because 'OMG, did you hear that XYZ is doing ABC! OMG'.

Relentless81 · 23 May 2011 at 17:18

Couldnt be less interested, the media and the people who find this stuff interesting really make me laugh

Tweaker · 23 May 2011 at 17:18

I think the story about no story is more interesting about than the story that wasnt told.

Does that make sense?

Casdawer · 23 May 2011 at 17:18

I agree with Fox here, i don't understand why people are so obsessed with stuff like this.

There are way more important stories out there and the papers are completely focused on this.

People need to get out more...

Morba · 23 May 2011 at 17:19

[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.

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.

Eriedor · 23 May 2011 at 17:19

[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?

Absolutely agree, it's for this reason regardless of the freedom of expression issues I wanted the injunction to be upheld just to

1) Annoy all the nosy people who's lives are so empty their self esteem is tied up in the lives of talentless celebs (not giggs)
2) Annoy the talentless celeb that is that imogen woman

Duke · 23 May 2011 at 17:19

People are interested in this crap? Guess the garbage red top newspapers would be out of business otherwise.

pingwing · 23 May 2011 at 17:20

Mr Jack said:
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.

It's essential. The only sensible thing David Cameron has ever said is that he is uneasy with the courts making the law. The courts are only there to uphold the law and in this privacy nonsense they are creating law to further one view that we are all entitled to a private life but not entitled to a free press...

What the mp's should have done is named everyone who has a super-injunction out about 3 weeks ago to retain some sort of credibility on the issue as it came up last year with that company that dumped off the Ivory Coast followed by Ian Hislop and private eye being sued for breaking the injunction (till parliamentary privilege killed it off anyway).

Some sort of privacy law needs to be implemented, probably with a more sensible set of damages set up instead for people wrongly shamed by the media as there is no defending what Giggs did (apart from the womans nice rack), same goes for Mosley a few years ago with his weird Nazi fetish

Yas786 · 23 May 2011 at 17:20

Greenlizard0 said:
Of course the worst thing about it is that one day, there will be something that we do need to know about it and there'll be stupid precedents set.

Ryan was taken to the cleaners by his lawyers on this one. He and his past actions now gotten far more attention over something that has failed so miserably - and I'm not talking about his marriage.

Supposedly his wife is sticking with him a la Colleen Rooney and that john Terry's wife....his family were at the last Utd game ie his kids and wife...pics in the Daily Fail lol.

Purdy · 23 May 2011 at 17:20

Been up to it for years with Neville.

Hope it went for no win no fee lawyers.

[TW]Fox · 23 May 2011 at 17:20

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.

Giggs has never struck me as being a media whore - he is somebody who plays football and wants people to be interested in his football.

I guess you are one of these who is desperate to know about the private lives of those with more sporting acheivement than yourself, which would explain your lame attempts to defend the general publics rabid interest in the PRIVATE lives of other people?

I see no logical reason why being in the public eye means the public have an automatic right to know about your private life. The guy kicks a ball about, he isn't a professional marraige advisor so it's irrelevent.