RYAN GIGGS

PapaLazaru · 23 May 2011 at 18:31

I am not in the least bit interested in what happened but one thing is certain. Don't try and **** with the internet. Giggs and his legal team got pwned.

Guerrilla · 23 May 2011 at 18:31

daz said:
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.

It does seem rather stupid the way they are being used currently.

daz · 23 May 2011 at 18:31

[TW]Fox;19206175 said:
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.

That isn't the root problem at all, if you think it is this issue has gone completely over your head.

The root problem is that we don't have a right to free speech in this country - but it has taken cases like this to highlight how backwards our libel laws are in this respect.

Yas786 · 23 May 2011 at 18:32

andi said:
Wonder who tipped them off.

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

Indeed...no sympathy from me either...she knew he was married but yet went full steam ahead knowing that all he wanted was to nail her, which he did...she then claimed that she was in love with him then the rumours started that she tried to blackmail him for £100k...which if true is disgusting behaviour from her...which begs the question that if shes so adamant that she didnt blackmail Giggsy...why cant she sue him for slander??...methinks theres more to the story than what is currently being let on.

Morba · 23 May 2011 at 18:33

[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.

No, it's the press that wanted to write about it. If they didn't then no one would care.
The press stirring up a frenzy about nothing.. Who'd have thought it.

matthewhotdude · 23 May 2011 at 18:34

[TW]Fox;19205547 said:
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.

I dont think many people give a **** who he slept with, it's more the fact that he went to court to stop anyone talking about it that made the story gain more interest.

byteagig · 23 May 2011 at 18:36

[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?

this post has been quoted about 11 times lol.

it wouldnt have generated much, if any interest if the knob didnt get a super injunction. the fact that he tried to hide his identity generated the interest.
just because a person has some £££ doesnt give them the right to do what they want, then buy anonymity when it all goes **** up.

[TW]Fox · 23 May 2011 at 18:37

Morba said:
No, it's the press that wanted to write about it. If they didn't then no one would care.
The press stirring up a frenzy about nothing.. Who'd have thought it.

The press are a business. They write what sells papers, and sex scandals sell papers.

An interesting article about the history of modern art doesnt really have the same sort of effect on sales.

badcompany · 23 May 2011 at 18:37

matthewhotdude said:
I dont think many people give a **** who he slept with, it's more the fact that he went to court to stop anyone talking about it that made the story gain more interest.

+1

only bothered by the way they try to buy their way thru life.

Simpliest way is to remain faithful

[TW]Fox · 23 May 2011 at 18:38

matthewhotdude said:
I dont think many people give a **** who he slept with, it's more the fact that he went to court to stop anyone talking about it that made the story gain more interest.

Whilst this might be what has interested most here - thankfully - the reason it came about in the first place is because much of the country is really rather interested in who sleeps with who.

Many of them can't spell super injunction let alone care what one is.

Morba · 23 May 2011 at 18:39

[TW]Fox;19206236 said:
The press are a business. They write what sells papers, and sex scandals sell papers.

An interesting article about the history of modern art doesnt really have the same sort of effect on sales.

But people dont write in asking for it, the press know how to male something sell.

And yes, art sells just like normal news sells. But hey, in your eyes everyone wants to know about this.....

Nate--IRL-- · 23 May 2011 at 18:41

Nate

[TW]Fox · 23 May 2011 at 18:41

Morba said:
But hey, in your eyes everyone wants to know about this.....

If nobody was interested in the private lives of celebrities, then the various magazines dedicated to just this would go bust overnight and the tabloid papers would move on to somebody else.

Unless you actually think the papers go bonkers to print things nobody cares about?

daz · 23 May 2011 at 18:44

[TW]Fox;19206265 said:
If nobody was interested in the private lives of celebrities, then the various magazines dedicated to just this would go bust overnight and the tabloid papers would move on to somebody else.

Unless you actually think the papers go bonkers to print things nobody cares about?

The primary issue Fox is not "Ryan Giggs" or celebrities' private lives -those are just the setting for the freedom of speech versus super-injunctions issue. Like I said it's a shame it's taken this particular subject for it to come to light, but the people have picked up the baton and ran with it - and rightly so - the principle of the issue is the matter at hand here.

The story would have lasted a few days maximum otherwise. It would have blown over, and he could have got on with rebuilding his relationship with his wife...

cm1179 · 23 May 2011 at 18:45

Nate--IRL-- said:
Nate

haha @ the advert board

and everyone who is posting in this thread is the reason why stories like this are public interest

[TW]Fox · 23 May 2011 at 18:47

daz said:
The primary issue Fox is not "Ryan Giggs" or celebrities' private lives -those are just the setting for the freedom of speech versus super-injunctions issue. Like I said it's a shame it's taken this particular subject for it to come to light, but the people have picked up the baton and ran with it - and rightly so - the principle of the issue is the matter at hand here.

The story would have lasted a few days maximum otherwise.

I agree with you there. The injunctions are stupid.

It's just a shame such a problem exists that people feel the need to take stupid measures as a result.

the shadow · 23 May 2011 at 18:49

it's only the situation where there are rulings on privacy but clearly many people are being able to break them using social networking.or in other cases people spreading false rumours of people on twitter etc so they flee there homes is of concern to me

leaskovski · 23 May 2011 at 18:49

Nate--IRL-- said:
giggsys dongle

lolGiggs

Rameses · 23 May 2011 at 18:49

The word we're looking for is:

Sensationalism

The use of exciting or shocking stories or language at the expense of accuracy, in order to provoke public interest or excitement : media sensationalism.

----

Pretty much sums up how the papers work, to provoke public interest or excitement, which spreads to TV/Radio and now social media. It is not really news, but gossip sells to women & a percentage of guys and with the advent of twitter/facebook/countless-magazines/tvshows it drums it up further.

You're not going to convince anyone Fox, unfortunately, its just the way society is, as wrong as that may be.

A dictatorship / state media is the only answer! :cool:

Morba · 23 May 2011 at 18:51

[TW]Fox;19206265 said:
If nobody was interested in the private lives of celebrities, then the various magazines dedicated to just this would go bust overnight and the tabloid papers would move on to somebody else.

Unless you actually think the papers go bonkers to print things nobody cares about?

Of course they wouldn't print it if it wasn't worth it. Bit they have made it worth it, they have kept supplying the goods to their readers, like any sensible publication would.