RYAN GIGGS

Goberpiles316 · 23 May 2011 at 18:09

[TW]Fox;19206037 said:
Whats crazy is how you seem unable to comprehend what it is I'm saying. I'll split it down into bitesize chunks to help you.

a) I think the publics interest in other peoples private lives is pathetic and ridiculous
b) I think somebodies private life is just that - private unless they wish otherwise
c) I think that none of this would have been a problem in the first place, and neither would anyone need an injunction, had a) not applied.

I have actually *not* said that I feel it's acceptable for people to take out injunctions. All I've said about the injunction is how it would never have been needed in the first place were it not for the gutter press and the people who lap up the dross they print.

If it makes you feel better, I think the whole injunction thing is ridiculous and counterproductive. But it's a symptom of a greater problem.

It is quite obvious that the public are, sadly, interested in the private lives of celebrities. This is not the same thing as these private lives being IN the public interest.

Here here!

Danthus · 23 May 2011 at 18:13

[TW]Fox;19206045 said:
I didn't realise that, no.

So she didn't go to the press. He obviously, didn't go to the press.

Did he have an audience in the bedroom or something then? Who went to the press?

They were taking trips to hotels and the NoTW were tipped off, all of a sudden she came home to find reporters on her doorstep asking for her side of the story.

It was agreed between Giggs and Thomas that she wouldn't say anything, an agreement both parties were happy with.

[TW]Fox · 23 May 2011 at 18:14

OldCoals said:
They were taking trips to hotels and the NoTW were tipped off, all of a sudden she came home to find reporters on her doorstep asking for her side of the story.

It was agreed between Giggs and Thomas that she wouldn't say anything, an agreement both parties were happy with.

So in reality then the problem here is... the general publics unhealthy desire for private information on peopel they don't know, fuelling the gutter press hounding people?

Who'd have thought it.

Though surely all the press knows is that they shared a hotel room. Last time I checked that wasn't concrete proof of an affair no matter how likely.

I now feel sympathy for her as well if this is true. Two people mutually agreed something private to them, in private. Now it's all over the news because..... of people obsession with the private lives of others, and the gutter press.

Vonhelmet · 23 May 2011 at 18:15

[TW]Fox;19206037 said:
Whats crazy is how you seem unable to comprehend what it is I'm saying. I'll split it down into bitesize chunks to help you.

a) I think the publics interest in other peoples private lives is pathetic and ridiculous
b) I think somebodies private life is just that - private unless they wish otherwise
c) I think that none of this would have been a problem in the first place, and neither would anyone need an injunction, had a) not applied.

I have actually *not* said that I feel it's acceptable for people to take out injunctions. All I've said about the injunction is how it would never have been needed in the first place were it not for the gutter press and the people who lap up the dross they print.

If it makes you feel better, I think the whole injunction thing is ridiculous and counterproductive. But it's a symptom of a greater problem.

It is quite obvious that the public are, sadly, interested in the private lives of celebrities. This is not the same thing as these private lives being IN the public interest.

All true. It shouldn't be a surprise, however, that this sort of story ends up highlighting the absurdity of this sort of thing.

flibbage0 · 23 May 2011 at 18:15

OldCoals said:
They were taking trips to hotels and the NoTW were tipped off, all of a sudden she came home to find reporters on her doorstep asking for her side of the story.

It was agreed between Giggs and Thomas that she wouldn't say anything, an agreement both parties were happy with.

Then why could she not just say "I don't know what you are talking about?"

badcompany · 23 May 2011 at 18:16

Get some new lawers mr Higgs their advice is ####

LOL Ryan gigs vs twitter. 0-1

Azza · 23 May 2011 at 18:17

Everything Fox has said in this thread I agree with 100%. I admire and marvel at Giggs as a footballer, but I honestly couldn't give a flying **** what he gets up to privately and I certainty don't give a seconds thought to the **** he slept with or any other 'celebrity' that wants their sad lives spread across tabloid trash just to get some attention and money.

Vonhelmet · 23 May 2011 at 18:17

[TW]Fox;19206080 said:
So in reality then the problem here is... the general publics unhealthy desire for private information on peopel they don't know, fuelling the gutter press hounding people?

Who'd have thought it.

Though surely all the press knows is that they shared a hotel room. Last time I checked that wasn't concrete proof of an affair no matter how likely.

I now feel sympathy for her as well if this is true. Two people mutually agreed something private to them, in private. Now it's all over the news because..... of people obsession with the private lives of others, and the gutter press.

If nothing had been going on, I doubt he'd have gone all superinjunction on us. Cf. how Jemima Khan laughed off the claim that she was having an affair with Clarkson.

The Funktopus · 23 May 2011 at 18:18

I find the whole situation farcical, in that some random skanks can make a lucrative career out of putting out to someone famous and selling their story to the papers, and that someone expects the law to intervene on his behalf to help keep his dirty secrets under wraps. On what possible grounds would he have been granted the injuction, that news of the affair could lead to the end of his marriage? If his family was so God-damned precious to him, perhaps he should have thought about that before dipping his wick and kept it in his pants instead?

The whole sorry situation is a joke.

AGD · 23 May 2011 at 18:18

[TW]Fox;19206037 said:
b) I think somebodies private life is just that - private unless they wish otherwise

I have actually *not* said that I feel it's acceptable for people to take out injunctions.

[TW]Fox;19206037 said:
Any issues regarding his behaviour, should they come to light, are an issue that is between him and whoever he has signed a contract with, not the rest of the country, unless he has broken the law.

Those two statements strongly imply that you think celebs getting rich by portraying a false image have a moral (if not legal) right to prevent others from knowing. They are not statements about whether or not people should be interested in someone's private life.

Furthermore, the second statement suggests you in general, do not believe there can be a case for the public interest to override people's privacy concerns.

andi · 23 May 2011 at 18:18

Wonder who tipped them off.

I've got no sympathy for her, she's milked this for all its worth with TV appearences.

Danthus · 23 May 2011 at 18:21

[TW]Fox;19206080 said:
So in reality then the problem here is... the general publics unhealthy desire for private information on peopel they don't know, fuelling the gutter press hounding people?

Who'd have thought it.

I am not arguing with you when it comes to the interest in celeb land.

The injunction was not just one whereby the media could not report the affair, more importantly, and what seems to be missed here is it also stopped her from naming him otherwise she could face prison, hence why I said she was thrown to the lions. She has quizzed by the media and TV, granted she didn't have to agree to the interviews, but what sort of country do we live in whereby yo can go to prison for telling the truth?

Though surely all the press knows is that they shared a hotel room. Last time I checked that wasn't concrete proof of an affair no matter how likely.

Come on, you are not that naive, it was more that one meeting.

pieplough · 23 May 2011 at 18:21

I cant be the only one who couldn't give a toss? Surely?

[TW]Fox · 23 May 2011 at 18:21

AGD said:
Those two statements strongly imply that you think celebs getting rich by portraying a false image have a moral (if not legal) right to prevent others from knowing. They are not statements about whether or not people should be interested in someone's private life.

Why are you so hung up on this false image thing? Do you honestly think only celebs with a 'false image' ever get trouble from the press or the general public being obsessed with everything they do?

People lapped up photos of poor Kate Middleton SHOPPING, there was no 'false image' there yet still people wanted as many details about her life as possible.

Furthermore, the second statement suggests you in general, do not believe there can be a case for the public interest to override people's privacy concerns.

In the case of concensual and legal relationships between adults, no, I don't beleive it would ever be in the public interest to override privacy.

In the case of illegal acts, however, its obviously completely different, but thats another topic.

We are talking about the gutter press and the people who love to read about who is doing who, here. Not a matter of national security is it?

Danthus · 23 May 2011 at 18:22

flibbage0 said:
Then why could she not just say "I don't know what you are talking about?"

They had been followed previously.

[TW]Fox · 23 May 2011 at 18:22

OldCoals said:
what sort of country do we live in whereby yo can go to prison for telling the truth?

The same sort of country where nothing is private, I guess. Neither situation is acceptable, though lets face it the chance of anyone going to prison was less than remote.

Danthus · 23 May 2011 at 18:24

[TW]Fox;19206145 said:
The same sort of country where nothing is private, I guess. Neither situation is acceptable, though lets face it the chance of anyone going to prison was less than remote.

I agree, but I think you now see where I am coming from better!

[TW]Fox · 23 May 2011 at 18:28

OldCoals said:
I agree, but I think you now see where I am coming from better!

Yea, I do.

I don't think the injunction thing was sensible at all - and neither do I think such a thing should become a regular part of society - but all the fuss about it is just distracting everyone from the root problem.

Which is that we are just nosey busybodies, at the end of the day. It's laughable how people try to justify what is really just them wanting some gossip to discuss over the water cooler when in reality they don't even know the person and have never engaged with them at any level.

daz · 23 May 2011 at 18:30

It's a shame that it has taken this case to bring it out - it should really have happened with Trafigura.

Free speech has to trump privacy in this instance, and the power of these "super injunctions" must be curtailed in law to something much more reasonable.

Conscript · 23 May 2011 at 18:30

[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?

+1