- This topic has 17 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
…what he has been up to?
Ok, so now that it has been mention under Parliamentary Privilege that Giggys is the footballer who has been playing hide the sausage with Imogen Thomas can anyone offer any justification as to why it is or should be in the ‘public interest’ that we should know?
I think the injunction in this case was quite correct and it is nobodies business what Giggs gets up to in his private life.
I don’t think anyone really cares about who has done what to whom in this recent spate of superinjunctions. I think what people object to the idea of being able to "buy" privacy for large sums. It appears at the minute that it is mainly sexual infidelity that is being covered up or at least that is what makes the most headlines. The worrying thing is that there may be other legal matters that are covered up by the wealthy that could be in the public interest rather than sleaze stories that the public are interested in.
For example there is a case of unfair dismissal that should be tried through the courts but the person trying to bring the case is being injuncted by the person he is trying to sue. If the employee were employed by Tesco they would have normal recourse to British employment law. The complainant in this case is in a different boat as his former employer is a wealthy TV chef whos has used his money to make things difficult.
Spot on Seven Towers.
I also agree with the basic premise of Pete’s initial question.
I couldn’t care less who Giggs and ***** are shagging – I don’t even care if they want to get an "ordinary" injunction out to prevent publication of the fact he is playing away – the only people it is of interest to would be their respective Spouses.
What I have a great concern about is the concept of a Superinjunction in that it is so powerful, indeed disproportionately powerful – it is fundamentally wrong and has the potential be be misused by those who can afford one.
(By the way I only blanked out the name of the second footballer – although the term "footballer" is open to debate – to avoid issues for Corm and for this site – like many others I have freely named him elsewhere.)
I think a point is being missed here, sure I could not care less, after all he is only doing what a hell of a lot of chaps would also do if they had his privileges, cause it sure ain’t his looks.
No, I believe he has made a difficult situation worse by making an accusation that she attempted to blackmail him and if he had kept as low a profile as possible, eventually the furore would have died down much sooner.
That said, anything which wipes the smug smiles of those connected with Manchester United is good as far as I am concerned.
Billy's Outback Shack
This guy’s been all over HK the past couple of years (and Greater China / Singapore / Malaysia / Thailand) as the face of CYMA watches:
http://www.totalsportsasia.com/PressReleases/CYMA.asp
" With his role model attitude towards loyalty, fair play and discipline ….he showcases CYMA’s brand values…etc etc"
Is not the real point here that he and his lawyers, in effect, have pro-actively gone "in yer face" to each and every member of an unsuspecting public minding its own business (though as it turns out apparently only in England & Wales) ?
Is it correct that nobody’s saying that the underlying information (whatever it may be) is false, only that it has to be hidden from, and not breathed among, the public, under threat of imprisonment ?
So presumably the man can continue to be marketed as Mr "loyalty, fair play, discipline", etc without any reference to what the punters on the receiving end of that marketing might think of this new information, or indeed what he by his injunctions apparently thinks of the punters’ (in)ability to put this information into context ?
Whatever happens in England, will be interesting to see what happens in HK with CYMA.
Don’t any of these ‘personalities’ realise that the women they have an affair with will ‘kiss and tell’ eventually…I mean, it’s happened so many times now it’s blindingly obvious..isn’t it??
In Giggs’ case it’s more a case of a somewhat puerile ‘the public being interested’ than ‘in the public interest’, though as Wit points out he may well have taken out the injunction in order to maintain his clean-cut gentlemanly image for financial reasons so it may have been ‘in the public interest’ to have him ‘outed’ anyway
Whatever, these super-injunctions are all but unenforceable, and in the main, probably rightly so as I for one don’t like secrecy, be that from the state or from figures in the public-eye, most of whom really should know better
The talk of the 75,000 people facing the said footballer in court is both amusing and ridiculous. Perhaps the 75,000 should queue up outside the High Court now and each chip in £1 for the legal bills?
Let’s not forget, whilst we know who it is, the order remains in place.
I’d now suggest it’s time the government intervened, paid off his legal bills and ended it.
Only in Britain could the PM know who it is – probably having in some way broke the order himself by discussing it – yet at the same time 75,000 people could have their data handed over to the police and/or the said footballers lawyers.
The protection a person’s right to privacy, enshrined in the ECHR to which we are signatories, is symptomatic of a gradual erosion of freedom of speech in this country (and the EU)
Unless publishing private information would damage national security, the media should be free to publish. If it’s the truth then that is sufficient justification not to ban publication (bar the national security caveat). If it’s an untruth, then and only then should the person/organisation outed by the press/media have recourse to the courts.
On a more serious issue than the sex lives of soccer stars. How free do you think you are in the EU to voice a rational critical analysis of the dark side of Islam without fear of prosecution?
How long before dissing the EU and its top politicians will land you in chokey?strategy reminds me of the Wise Woman giving Blackadder three options:
1) kill Bob; or
2) kill himself; or
3) go ahead and sleep with Bob but ensure no one ever found out by killing everyone else in the entire world.
I’m no prude, nor am I a saint myself, but, if reports are to be believed, having carnal knowledge* of your brothers wife for over eight years really is beyond the pale.
What made me smile though is his sister-in-law was outraged that Giggs had cheated on HER with Imogen. What world do these people live in?
Presumably it didn’t cross her mind Giggs was also cheating on his wife, or didn’t that matter? Or she was cheating on her husband herself, presumably that was also OK?
Hypocrisy and double standards does not describe it.
No wonder Giggs wanted the superinjunction!!!
Interesting to note that Max Clifford is "representing" both the women in this case!!!
* my original choice of words would not have passed the censor!!!
Max Clifford should start sponsoring the Premiership (or at least the League Cup) given the amount of money he makes out of it
Wonder if I could sell my ‘I’m the only woman in the country NOT to have slept with Ryan Giggs’ story?
Agree with Paul and wit
This whole superinjunction stuff is sinister IMO. It is a tool for the rich to suppress the truth being reported. Simple as that
There should be a completely free press for all matters barring those of "national security" (which in itself is abused of course)
If the reporting is wrong we have very tough (toughest in west i understand) laws for slander and libel
Giggs looks likely to lose a sponsor now, which frankly proves once and for all that the desired suppression would have been benefited his commerical interests which are naturally enough part of the public market and thus their interest.
Giggs is clearly a nasty piece of work too…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.