RYAN GIGGS
- Thread starter AGD
- Start date
I find it fairly unbelievable that any person would sleep with such a vile skank and NOT expect the story to come out. Ok, she's a nice looking girl, but when I look at her all I see is a reptile with no talent/qualifications other than her looks, trying to capitalise by sleeping with some simian-looking dummy that kicks balls for a living, only because he's idolized by the unwashed and she sees £££ to be made. Next the king of sleaze, Clifford will step in, spin and package this trash from imbeciles to froth over on forums, breakfast cafes and work vans, until the next 'WORLD EXCLUSIVE' non-issue hits. You know, Vicky Beckham's hair disaster or something like that.
Every time I see someone buy a red top paper, some weekly or similar excrement, I can't help but think, You ****ing moron. How are you not ashamed of yourself. How are you not hiding that under your shirt as you walk out of here in full view.
They're just reporting what was said in parliament.
Not too bothered about Ryan Giggs however this injunction nonsense is getting out of hand. In principle they aren't a bad idea but you are on a slippery slope when they start being handed out for trivial matters like this. They should be used on more important things for example a persons safety or something like that.
Well if this affair is true you would think like most footballers wives she will probably know that she has more to lose than gain by divorcing him, saying that he is coming to the end of his career though so who knows, or cares....
Nobody is reporting he might of had an affair, they are reporting that an MP has mentioned him by name in parliament, they have to chose their words carefully or they will risk being caught out and sued.
Well if this affair is true you would think like most footballers wives she will probably know that she has more to lose than gain by divorcing him, saying that he is coming to the end of his career though so who knows, or cares....
Nobody is reporting he might of had an affair, they are reporting that an MP has mentioned him by name in parliament, they have to chose their words carefully or they will risk being caught out and sued.
Last edited:
Yes but millions of others who are perhpas more connected/use the internet more have known for a while. The story got picked up by several US news sites(more as a story about freedom of speech/twitter being taken to court etc..) and has been all over twitter for a while.
well, we're 6 pages in now. bit late
... and only repeating what was said in parliament me lud.
They're (cleverly) publishing that an MP said his name.
Yes but you can't use the injunction as a means to block someone reporting on parliament. AFAIK that is going back to a fairly old law.
Its happened before - Fred Goodwin/RBS also the trafigura case.
The MP is protected by parliamentary privilege and the press is free to report what has been said in parliament.
he had a legitimate case for it, there was a lot more than just a random affair.
He was wrongly accused of fathering a child. If the press were allowed to print the news about him he would have been ripped apart before confirmation of parenthood, which is wrong.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 22,610
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
Personally I do not care a monkeys about Giggs or what hes done. Gagging the media is out of order, again there are plenty of means to tackle the media if they are proven to be out of order.
Being very rich and therfore having the ability to block anyone going after you is out of order. Giggs knew what he did was wring hence why he tried to stop it, that is exactly the reason why it should be available. Its matters not whether anyone should know about his business, clearly he knew it was wrong or he would have just gone "yep I did it and Im happy with that" after the story was exposed.
Plenty of people standing up as role models, model citizens, outstanding members of the community etc have been brought down by the media and the ability to print stories. There would be countless thugs, bullies etc that could have got away with it if they had media gaging orders in place. Often one story leads to another.
Say no one famous ended up even being named, the whole legal system would have to start being behind closed doors for these people which would surely break the law of this land.
Think we should feel sorry for Giggs to be honest, I mean years ago he was porking Danni Behr and to resort to that munter, yikes!
Being very rich and therfore having the ability to block anyone going after you is out of order. Giggs knew what he did was wring hence why he tried to stop it, that is exactly the reason why it should be available. Its matters not whether anyone should know about his business, clearly he knew it was wrong or he would have just gone "yep I did it and Im happy with that" after the story was exposed.
Plenty of people standing up as role models, model citizens, outstanding members of the community etc have been brought down by the media and the ability to print stories. There would be countless thugs, bullies etc that could have got away with it if they had media gaging orders in place. Often one story leads to another.
Say no one famous ended up even being named, the whole legal system would have to start being behind closed doors for these people which would surely break the law of this land.
Think we should feel sorry for Giggs to be honest, I mean years ago he was porking Danni Behr and to resort to that munter, yikes!
No, the Judge today has upheld the injunction, it is farcical!
What’s she like in bed?
Putting a blanket ban on any reporting isn't legitimate at all IMHO. He had an affair and that in itself raised questions of his own integrity - it was extremely hypocritical of him to take out an injunction.
Falsely reporting allegations that he's fathered a child is another issue but preventing the press from publishing the story that he's had an affair just isn't on IMO.
If a story is true and doesn't breach national security then I don't see why the press should have any restrictions on publishing. The US has very few restrictions on the press and yet their tabloids aren't nearly as bad as ours when it comes to publishing celeb gossip/stories about affairs. Our entire legal system needs to be overhauled from privacy laws to our ridicules libel laws.
Wasn't it a case that he only had it for the time that was needed for him to sort the paternity out and deal with his family, then it was released?
Thats fair enough in my mind.
A ban on priting so he can inform family so they don't find out in the news is as far as it should go though.
Thats fair enough in my mind.
A ban on priting so he can inform family so they don't find out in the news is as far as it should go though.
They have over interpreted a law on the basis someone has payed expensive layers to argue in a specific way. In effect the rulings create the law because there is no strong freedom of press law or privacy law pushing it one way or another.
Parliamentary privilege is technically being abused which is bad, but in the case of the Ivory coast dumping its very important that it is used, just happens that the Giggs case is the one that pushes it over the edge as it takes up the abuse of such a stupid idea, that people can do wrong and just shove it under the carpet.